CC 3827

10 30 06

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

October 24, 2006

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Jeffery A. Hogan at 3:06 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 2006 in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Jackson.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Walford.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester (Arrived at 3:08 p.m.), Walford, Carmody (Arrived at 3:09 p.m.), Robertson, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman - - -

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Madam Clerk, Councilman Carmody is here, and he’ll be arriving at any moment. I understand that Councilman Green is going to be out of town today.

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Thompson, did you have something else?

Mr. Thompson: No, just what you said.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Robertson to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday, October 9, 2006 and Council Meeting, Tuesday, October 10, 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor which are required by law.

Councilman Hogan: Mayor Hightower, do you have any communications or distinguished guests?

Mayor Hightower: Don’t have anything today Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Alright. Any Council Member have any distinguished guests or communications?

Councilwoman Robertson: Mr. Chairman, Patti Cox was going to - - - there she is, I didn’t see you over there. Patti Cox is here, if she could step forward for just a moment, she wanted to say a few words. Patti is running for the 4^th Congressional District.

Ms. Patti Cox: (8501 Millicent Way) I am here today to announce that I am running for U.S. Congress, 4^th Congressional District, and I’m asking the voters of the 4^th Congressional District for their help to change the way that things are done here in Louisiana, and in our country. We need to make changes in Washington. We need a voice up there that’s going to speak for the people of Northwest Louisiana, and I will go up there and get the people here in the 13 parishes of the 4^th Congressional District a real voice on the issues that are important to the people on a daily basis. There are several - - - there are a few issues that I am particularly passionate about, and those are the economy here in Northwest Louisiana, infrastructure, and Social Security. And I can go up there on Day 1 and help make a difference for the people here on those issues. With Social Security, we need to protect and strengthen our Social Security Program. Our infrastructure, we need to complete I-49 and I-69. We also need an energy policy that is balanced and provides for alternative energy sources that will also create jobs. And we need a broad band system in place that will make Louisiana competitive in the rest of the country and the world. So, I just wanted to give you a few thoughts on my candidacy and ask that you - - - if you, as far as your support on November 7^th, I certainly would appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Ms. Cox. Ms. Cox, I had a question for you. I’ve only heard your name, I don’t know much about you. I appreciate you coming down today, I’m just curious to know have you ever held political office before?

Ms. Cox: I have not, I am a small business owner, I am not a career politician.

Councilman Hogan: Next we need to recognize Mr. Chris Giordano from the Louisiana State Fair. Mr. Giordano, are you present today? Welcome to the meeting.

Mr. Chris Giordano: (3401 Judy Lane) I represent the State Fair of Louisiana as their President and General Manager. As you all know the State Fair will kick off this Thursday, it’s our 100 year Anniversary. I’d like to thank the Shreveport City Council for inviting me here today, and we’re going to kick off at 9:30 a.m. this Thursday morning with a grand opening and ribbon cutting out at our front gate. We’ll open up the gates at 10:00 a.m. Every weekday of the State Fair is totally free to come to the Fair. It’s free parking and free gat admission on the weekdays until 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. On opening day, it then becomes $1 day at the State Fair. It’s $1 to park, it’s $1 to get in, each ride is $1. At 7:30 , we’ll have a parade going down the midway, featuring the Fair Park High School Marching Band, and some of our attractions, and animals and such that are in the Fair. At 8:00 Zambelli Fireworks Company will give us a fireworks display. The Fair runs through November 12^th. We’re featuring the Wild West this year. The theme for the Fair is the Wild 100. We’ve got quite a fair coming together as we speak right now, and I can tell you that the community is going to be in for a treat when they come to the State Fair this year. It’s the best looking State Fair, that I’ve seen since I’ve been here. Of course, we’re all doing it in honor of my father who is deceased on May 20^th of this year. We’re dedicating the Fair to him this year. He booked in most of the attractions and the entertainment and such, so basically this is his grand finale. We’ve got all kinds of entertainment. We’ve got Blake Shelton in concert. We have Point of Grace in concert. Rodeo, and all sorts of other activities. We’ve got the Great American Frontier Show, which you’ll see when you come to the fair. It’s an elaborate western town with all sorts of activities for the families to do that come out to the fair this year. Basically, I’ve got to get back to work. As you know, I’m very busy. This is our busy day, because we’re getting everything into the State Fair. But I do want to thank the City of Shreveport for all the support that they’ve given the State Fair over the years, and today. And I just ask that the whole community come out and support us for our 100^th year anniversary, and we will show you a very good time this year, and come to the State Fair please. And I do have a couple of things I do want to pass out to the room here today, and I did not bring cowboy hats this year. I understand it’s not good to bring cowboy hats. But I’ve got a few other things, and we just ask for your support and come to the fair please. Thank you. Are there any questions?

Councilwoman Robertson: What day is Blake Shelton?

Mr. Giordano: Blake Shelton is on Friday, November 3^rd, and that’s the KRMD free country concert, so they’re passing out tickets to different remotes around the area.

Councilman Jackson: I’ve got to get me some of those!

Councilman Carmody: Chris, you’ve probably seen it, but before your dad came, there was a large fence that ran along I-20 along the Fairgrounds, and every year, it’s stated the same thing. “It’s your fair, so be there”.

Mr. Giordano: That’s right.

Councilman Carmody: And your dad, I knew him I guess from the time he came in to operate Louisiana State Fair, he certainly is missed.

Mr. Giordano: Well, I appreciate that very much. And that slogan still stands today. We don’t really necessarily use it in our advertising, but it is your fair. Our whole purpose of being there is to promote the agricultural and industrial resources of the state and to provide a better quality of life for the citizens of this area and the entire state, and Ark-La-Tex, and you know we try to book in the things that are family friendly. We are very family oriented, and so bring your kids out and we’re going to have a good time this year. It’s going to be quite a treat.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chris, I just wanted to say that having served - - - I had the privilege of serving on the Fair’s board and working with Sam, and certainly as Councilman Carmody said, he’s going to be missed. I just hope that the same spirit that Sam had with regard to the Fair, would be one that not only you continued, but would permeate those who are participating whether they be employees, volunteers or what have you with the Fair, because he had a way of always making, at least me, I can only speak for myself and my family, feel welcome and sometimes even going beyond, above and beyond what I thought was necessary, but I really, did not obviously have a final chance to let him know, but I want you to know that I appreciate his commitment to the Fair, thus the commitment to this area, this city more specifically, and even more specifically than that, to District G, which is the District that I have the privilege of representing. So, we certainly hope that everybody will come out and see that the Fair has been a contributor, and it just happens to be in a wonderful part of town as well.

Mr. Giordano: Yes, it does. And I appreciate those comments very much. And he did instill those values in me, and we try to make that spread down throughout the staff also. And I can tell you, I’ve been working with my father all my life. I started out at the very lower end of the spectrum. Cleaning up horse stalls and that sort of thing. So, I’ve done every job on that fairground and I still do all those jobs today, and I don’t mind it a bit. And that’s what he taught me. And I appreciate the comments Theron.

Councilman Hogan: Just one question Chris. When is the Point of Grace Concert?

Mr. Giordano: Point of Grace is at 3:00 p.m. on November 5^th.

Councilman Hogan: 3:00 p.m. on November 5^th.

Mr. Giordano: Right, and that’s on a Sunday afternoon.

Councilman Hogan: Alright. For the people that may no know or here in the audience or listening at home, that’s a - - - it’s a contemporary Christian music group. It’s a group of ladies that’s been around for several years. And they’ve won several awards from their music and all. And they’re very, very good.

Mr. Giordano: Very good. They’ve sold over 5,000,000 copies of their album.

Councilman Lester: Yeah. Just wanted to tell Chris, thank you for all the hard work that you’ve done, and the only thing I’ll disagree with you about is this. This fair is not your dad’s grand finale, you are.

Mr. Giordano: Well, I appreciate that.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you, appreciate you coming today. Nice tie. I like that tie. I’ve got mine on today.

Reports:

Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel (To include detailed personnel report from SMG)

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Antee are you prepared to give us the Convention Center and Hotel report?

Mr. Antee: We don’t have anything, but we’ll be glad to answer any questions.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Jackson, didn’t you have a comment or a question?

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, a few things Mr. Chairman before we get to that. Are we still on distinguished guests?

Councilman Hogan: We’ve moved down to the Convention Center Report.

Councilman Jackson; But with all due respect Mr. Chairman, let me just say, if you would allow me, in the area of distinguished guests, I apologize, I missed that. As you all know you’ve been kind enough a couple of years ago to be supportive in enacting our first Youth Council, and since then, I want to say, the program has continued to grow and continued to grow such that this time, when we took applications for this particular council, there were 75 young people who applied for it. We obviously could not take all of them but there were 75 applicants for those few slots. And as you know we, began to take younger students meaning Sophomores and Juniors, and allowing them to serve two terms. And so the 75 just represented people who were trying for a first term. And so, I would ask you Mr. Chairman, if we could, at the time when they come, I’ve also asked one of the District Court Judges to come. And he’s been kind enough to do so, for a swearing in of them as we’ve done two times prior. So, I’d like to at that point to suspend the rules. And so I just wanted to let you know to expect them, and I think it will be approximately 4-4:15, somewhere in that timeframe. So, I’d just like to ask the Council if you would indulge me as well. To the Convention Center Report Mr. Chairman, I did receive - - - I wasn’t here on yesterday, and I thank you all for excusing me on yesterday. So, I just did in fact see the Convention Center reports. I would ask if the CAO or the Mayor if we could see about Mr. - - - I forget his name, yeah Tommy Clark, if he or someone who represents the company could come back again. I still have some questions that I think and I don’t know if everybody was satisfied with the answers to, but I wasn’t satisfied with the answers to, and I wanted to try to make sure that we get some closure on this. And I could do as much as I possibly could before it was the next Council’s turn to deal with this. They may or may not feel as significant about this, so I would ask if in fact we could try and get him to come back Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Alright. Mr. Antee?

Mr. Antee: We’ll make that request.

Councilman Jackson: The other thing Mr. Chairman, is they have given us a Fair Share Summary Hotel Report. I’d asked for a Convention Center, and they did in fact give me a DBE Compliance Office - - - something that had been done by the Compliance Officer and it seems like a similar format. If I could Mr. Chairman, I’d like to go back to the Convention Center Report, and I’ll come again with the Hotel Report please?

Councilman Hogan: Alright. No objections from Council Members.

Councilman Jackson: Alright, in here there is MBE participation, and on the first couple of pages, I think you all will see it suggest that it was 20.5% of the total contracted value, which was $66,855, 524. Of this group, it again lists some of the same people who I guess worked on the other project, and I guess I have some questions to the Administration, that maybe they can talk to someone and get us some answers about, but I look at the convention center, and I don’t know if these companies even grew in capacity over time or whatever, but on the Convention Center report, it seemed that Triple L Management did about $5,900 worth of work. Yet, in the Convention Center Hotel, they have about $3,000,000 worth of work on here. And I don’t know or $2.6 (million) so I don’ know if they were just bidding on something different or not, maybe y’all can speak to that. The other thing was there is a group on here that is specifically called MBE that is Sterling Janitorial Services for $9,541. Well, on the Convention Center Hotel, they were removed from the Convention Center Hotel Report, because you could never tell me whether or not they were actually MBE. They were removed because they had - - - the Council will remember, several asterisks beside their name for a long time. And then finally they were removed because they couldn’t be proven that they were MBE, or DBE, or whatever the case may be, yet they are on this sheet, on the Convention Center as a bona fide MBE when it comes to their classification. And as I assumed, I assumed that this list was one list that was complete, because the Convention Center was pretty much, I think at our last meeting you said, 99 point something complete. So, I just wondered to me, just as a casual observer, it looks as if there is some kind of conflict with that particular scenario there. The other thing is throughout all of these particular projects, I wanted to see if we could identify, what is his name again? Mr. Clark, the last came and he said that we typically have what we call those contracts management scenarios. That’s where we give money to one person, and they give money to the people who actually do the work. How many of those folks are represented on here? Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Antee was about to say something.

Mr. Antee: I don’t think Mr. Clark ever said that contract managers were given money for work they didn’t perform. I think that was the other Council Members comment.

Councilman Jackson: No, no. I think if you look at the minutes, and I hope that you reflect on this Mr. Antee. Let me put it in context for you. I said here about three times, and I think the minutes will say it. I said to him, “Sir, do you mean that what you’ll do is give a contract to Mr. Thompson’s company, and he’ll turn around and give a contract to Ms. Glass’ company, who happens to be White, and they do the work?” He said to me, “yes, it happens all the time.” So I guess my question was is there somewhere we can see in a contract where it says we’re contracting with Mr. Thompson, to go out and find somebody to do the work. Because that would be the tenant. To me that would suggest that those are really what the - - - those are the statements in the contract that we’re asking him to do. But if you say to me that Mr. Thompson going and giving that contract was what he was supposed to do, then somewhere in the contract it ought to say that Mr. Thompson’s brokering for us. It doesn’t say that. What he said is, he called that process “contract management”. He said it happens all the time. You remember that? Do you - - - Mr. Mayor, do you remember that? Because I don’t want to mischaracterize it, because I know I was here, and I know I heard him say it, because I asked him about three times. And I don’t have the minutes in front of me, but if you can, before the meeting’s over, I’ll try to make sure we get a copy of those minutes. Because I asked him about it, two or three times. And it’s right here on the screen. I asked those particular questions. So, my concern is since we already know that it’s happening on the hotel, do we have any idea whether or not the people from Jackson, the Yates, if they have the same kind of system, if so, how may are represented in that system, is what I guess my question would be.

Mr. Antee: Well, Mr. Gilliam is here that can respond to that.

Councilman Jackson: Well, I don’t know.

Mr. Antee: But if I could answer. You ask a question, and then you don’t allow me to answer it Councilman.

Councilman Jackson: Clearly, you don’t have the answers. I asked you just now, and you said he never said that.

Mr. Antee: Well, how do you know when you don’t allow me the opportunity to answer.

Councilman Jackson: What I’m saying - - - Let me tell you Mr. Antee - - -

Mr. Antee: In this particular case, what you’re referring to with the contract to Mr. Thompson and then he hires Ms. Glass’ company, Ms. Glass is the subcontractor. And in a lot of these cases, for example, Triple L, you brought that up, because we all know that’s the bone of contention, is the fact that Triple L is performing the work.

Councilman Jackson: No, that’s not the question. We’re not talking about Triple L.

Mr. Antee: Triple L was given the contract to perform a certain list of services. Part of that they performed, part of it, they subcontract out.

Councilman Jackson: How much - - -

Mr. Antee: And I think Mr. Gilliam can respond to that.

Councilman Jackson: Listen Mr. Antee, how much Fair Share credit did we give them? What percentage do we give them for Fair Share credit? 100%?

Mr. Antee: That goes - - -

Councilman Jackson: Uh uh. What’s the number? I just look for the number. Did we give them 100%?

Mr. Antee: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: That’s all I wanted to know, I don’t need anymore answers. He may not do 100% of the work. But we’re giving 100% of the credit for saying he’s - - - I don’t care what words you use. That’s what it is. That’s the bottom line. And all I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter how long you try to answer me. 100 was the number I’m looking for. Because that’s the percentage of credit whether he does 100% of the work or not.

Mr. Antee: Under that scenario, Councilman Jackson, there is 0% participation. Because Walton Construction has the contract, and Walton Construction gets paid for 100% of the work. But they subcontract out so, under that scenario, - - -

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Antee, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Antee: Was 0% participation.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. If that’s the case, it’s going to be 0% when you finish the project. 100% goes to the general contractor. So, what we dealing with Fair Share for at all? I think you know exactly what I’m talking about. The 25% that you set and the Mayor set as the goal as this paper tiger that we call Fair Share, you set this goal Mr. Mayor, when you came in, and the Mayor said we’re going to have people participate. They’re going to be inclusive. Mr. Gilliam came the last time, pretty much put on the spot, and said he didn’t know about this contract management stuff. I believe that he didn’t know about the contract management stuff. I don’t even know if you all knew. I’d like to say no, you don’t, but I’d be disingenuous if I said I didn’t think you really knew. But my point is Mr. Clark, probably wasn’t supposed to say that. But he said that. And he said, here’s how it goes. He said it happens in the contracting industry all the time. Am I right about it? And he said these things all - - - that’s the way they do business. And I suggested to you the last time, nobody rebutted me the last time, you were here. You didn’t rebut with all the eloquence that you did today, at the last meeting. Probably because all of us were, you were just shocked.

Mr. Antee: No, I wasn’t paying attention.

Councilman Jackson: And I’m suggesting that - - - you weren’t paying attention. I mean that’s pretty much par for the course as well.

Mr. Antee: Yeah.

Councilman Jackson: I’m suggesting to you though, that to sit here and tell me that you’ve got another answer or really it’s 0%, cause 100% goes to the general contractor. So, what’s the deal with having Fair Share listed at all. You see it’s all fictional, and not worth the paper it’s printed on, is what you’ve just said, and in that bit of spat of arrogance, if you will, it suggest to me that it’s not even significant to you. You have a different perspective perhaps than I do. You have set there, and the Mayor has set there, and said to me at least for four years, here’s what we’re really doing. And I’ve said to you all in good faith, great. Let’s get it done. And now you sit here and tell me that in the 9lth hour of the Administration, or the 11^th hour of this Administration, hey technically it’s 100% Walton, cause we don’t really contract to anybody, they subcontract. Well, the idea was subcontracting 25% of the project to minorities. And now my question is, in the context of subcontracting 25% to minorities, how much of it was still the ‘sham’ business, and how much was legitimate? We found that out in the hotel, I’m simply asking you with the document that you’ve given me about the hotel, how much of this is real? And How much of this is Memorex?

Mr. Antee: Well, all of it’s real, and all I said was using your rationale, then it’s 0%. We didn’t have this discussion, when it was your guy in Tennessee that was contracted for to do the same work that Triple L (inaudible)

Councilman Jackson: It’s not my guy. It’s not my guy. It’s the guy you and the Mayor met with me behind the door and said yeah, you’ll get the deal set up, and Mr. Walton and all those folks said, get the deal set up. And I said to him, here’s three names of folks who are not even local, and you can use these folks, because I know they can do the business. He comes back and says to me, these guys were so large, they’re as big as we are (Walton Construction). And I said well they ought to be credible to do business with. You all then, at the 9^th hour, since you want to talk about it, you all then come back and bait and switch. The Mayor calls me on the phone, and says he didn’t know they got their contract cancelled. You said at the Council Meeting, yeah he knew, he had to give ‘em permission. I talked to you all in the hallway, and said, called you all some names, and said what I thought about you all. Now, we want to talk about it right here? That’s what we’ll talk about. That’s what really happen. So, it’s not my guy. Yes, they happen to be African-American, yes, I was supporting them in the project, yes. But they’re not my guy. Now, we talk about your guy? Your guy set up here and ran his mouth too much at the last Council Meeting. Your guy Tommy Clark, who worked for the guy who initially negotiated the deal with us when he wasn’t with Walton and McCrocklin, just happen to disappear, your guy cancelled the contract. That’s your guy. He’s not somebody who just became your friend, that’s your guy. To me that’s the definition of what ‘your guy’ is. So these were not my guys.

Mr. Antee: He was - - -he was with Walton. The guy from Tennessee was not performing. They called and said,

Councilman Jackson: They had nothing to perform.

Mr. Antee: They called and said, can we replace the minority from Tennessee?

Councilman Jackson: He had nothing to perform. How much work had Triple L done already.

Mr. Antee: With a local minority.

Councilman Jackson: How much work has Triple L done already.

Mr. Antee: And we said (inaudible).

Councilman Jackson: None. Nobody had even performed that contract. That $3,000,000 is not in the 51% that you said you’ve already spent. You told us at the last meeting, they’ve done no work yet, that’s why they’re not on the actual list. They’re on the proposed list. They haven’t done - - - how can they not perform and it’s not even time for them to do whatever they’re contracted to do?

Mr. Antee: Because part of the performance that - - -

Councilman Jackson: Lets tell the truth Ken.

Mr. Antee: He was to do was to provide a project engineer that he never provided for, that Walton then had to go out and provide.

Councilman Jackson: Well, why didn’t you tell me that the day, when the Mayor said it was just a mistake? Why didn’t somebody tell me that, that day? They Mayor could have stood there and said, well, let me tell you something. We tried to use him, but here’s what happened. He didn’t come with an engineer, he didn’t perform. That never happened. Today, you say that now on October the - - - whatever day it is, so it seems convenient that now you got a rabbit to pull out of your hat, but didn’t have one that day when we talked about it.

Mr. Antee: We weren’t answering that question. Walton was at that time.

Councilman Jackson: No, when you and I were standing in the hallway, when the Mayor and I were standing in the bathroom, the Mayor said he had a brain-freeze. That’s the only way it could have happened. Am I right about it Mr. Mayor? You told me that. You sat there and told me that yes, the Mayor did know. He had to know, because he had to sign off on it. And I said there is a conflict there, because the Mayor told me on the phone, he didn’t know, then he told me in the bathroom he didn’t know. And he said, you know what? We’ll make it better. And I said to you all, that’s fine. But guess what? How many times did I ever ask you about it again? None. Zero. But what I started doing was looking at the facts to see what was really happening. Because it doesn’t matter about the my guy group, you’re talking about Tennessee. So what ever happened to the rest of the folks on the list, how many other folks on the list were actually being just utilized as a front to have a Black face on what was ultimately a White contract? And for me, it wasn’t about who was getting any money, it’s about this system where it’s acceptable as Mr. Clark has said, to front a Black face to get a White business - - - the White business community ought to be up in arms about that, because why should I have to hide behind a shield, just to get a contract? That’s the problem with Affirmative Action and other things when people bastardize the process, misuse it and the people who really ought to be benefitting from it do benefit from it, because people play games, and it’s not politics, it’s more like poli-tricks whenever that kind of stuff begins to happen. And I’m suggesting to you, you have said to me at least two different things today that suggest that you are not being consistent with what you’ve told me in meeting prior. Today, you got all the information. You didn’t have the information when they cancelled the contract, but today you have the specifics. It’s hard for me to believe that you have the specifics four months after the fact, and in July, when it happened, you had no idea what went on.

Mr. Antee: These aren’t mine. I didn’t hire and fire. We will be glad to set up a meeting where we can all sit in the room and you can ask them all the other questions- - -

Councilman Jackson: We don’t have to have a meeting, they can come right here in this microphone during the Council Meeting.

Mr. Antee: Wherever you got your information, that’s the whole intent.

Councilman Jackson: I don’t want to ask them anything else in a private meeting, because I don’t trust them as far as I can see ‘em. I want them to stand right there and not explain to me, but explain to the citizens of the City of Shreveport, whose money it is that they are spending, whose money it is that they are playing the bait and switch game with. That’s who I’d like them to explain to. You don’t have to have a meeting with me, I’m not desirous of a meeting. I’d like for them to come to Council and address this full Council.

Mr. Antee: Well, Mr. Gilliam is here, we’ll have him to come up and tell you the process as it works, and how they certify, and verify if you really want to know how it works.

Councilman Jackson: I really don’t want to hear that. Because the process doesn’t work. All of us know that. We’ve heard Mr. Gilliam give the same song and dance because that’s what the policy says. It’s not Mr. Gilliam. Sam, you don’ have to say anything because the idea is that I don’t have any problem with Sam or his office. Cause they go by policies and procedures. Policies and procedures have never been the problem. It’s customs and practices that have been the problem. We’ve got policies and procedures up to the ceiling. So, if anybody comes in and looks, by the letter, every jock and every title is in the right place, we’ve got policy and procedure. Everybody knows you’ve got to be smart enough to do that. But what happens is when you use customs, and practices to circumvent the policies and procedures because if you lean that against the policies and procedures to say the policies and procedures permit you to do, what Mr. Clark stood there and suggested to me that you do, something’s wrong with that. And even you’ve got to understand that.

Mr. Antee: And I do, and Sam will you come and give them the customs and practices of how this operates?

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, unless any other Councilman wants to indulge in that, that’s not going to answer my question. I asked about the people who are on this list. Unless Mr. Gilliam, and Mr. Gilliam may want to talk about - - -

Mr. Gilliam: Mr. Chairman, may I address the Council?

Councilman Hogan: Yes.

Mr. Gilliam: First of all Mr. Jackson, if you would imagine, I was about as put out by the comment that was made by Mr. Clark.

Councilman Jackson: So, you were here. You’re not saying I made that up?

Mr. Gilliam: I was here, when I heard it.

Councilman Jackson: You heard him said yourself?

Mr. Gilliam: Well, we took off behind it because I said it couldn’t possibly be, and we immediately launched an investigation into this whole situation. Well, what I went ahead and did was, of course we sent Walton a letter because we want to know if indeed there are some front companies, there are some proformers. We want to know if there are people who are passed through because my assessment would be that’s totally against the spirit and the letter of the ordinance. We further went ahead and contacted every one of our clients that had done some work with this company on this particular project. We sent them a letter, we wanted to know if indeed that was the situation. We wanted to assess what was their work relationship with Walton. We further followed that up with face-to-face interviews with each one of the applicants. And the listing that you have, the people who have actually performed work, because we - - -, and I’ll go ahead and call some names, if you will. The likes of Mr. (inaudible), who did the (inaudible) Mr. McCorckel said of course he said hadn’t heard of such a situation. Mr. Willie Douglas, who made a significant amount of money doing the concrete finishing. Again, they were all appalled by that assessment that you heard here.

Councilman Jackson: Let me ask you this. Mr. Chairman, can I engage with Mr. - - -?

Councilman Hogan: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: How much do you all know as an office for example. I’m assuming it’s just a couple of y’all there, and there’s only a limited amount of information you could get, and you depend on the submission of information from contractors themselves. Is that correct?

Mr. Gilliam: And follow it up, as we did in this situation.

Councilman Jackson: How much do you know about their capacity, and for example their equipment, and whatever else they utilize whether or not this is the largest job they’ve ever done? Do they typically do these kinds of jobs all the time? How much do you know about that?

Mr. Gilliam: Without exception. Each one of the persons that I’m referring to, we have done site visits at their particular places before we certify them. We have looked at their inventory to make sure that they have the capability to do it. We have looked at their payrolls to make sure that they have the staff to do it. We have looked at three years of their income taxes to make sure that they are indeed a legitimate business, that they can perform what is called a commercial useful function.

Councilman Jackson: Business taxes or personal taxes?

Mr. Gilliam: Both. Those are the requirements. Before you get in our program.

Councilman Jackson: Do you have a file for everybody who is on it?

Mr. Gilliam: Everyone you’ve mentioned.

Councilman Jackson: So, we can look and see the file?

Mr. Gilliam: We are willing to share it with you.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you. That’s what I’d like to do. Thank you, I don’t have anymore questions for you. Well Mr. Gilliam, maybe you can explain this. On the Convention Hotel, I suggested earlier, there was some amount of money on there for Sterling Janitorial. There were asterisks by their name for several, several months, and then finally taken off, but I brought it up one day and said who are they, and they said they couldn’t ever find out what they really were, and so they took them off the list. You’re aware of that?

Mr. Gilliam: I took them off.

Councilman Jackson: They’re off the MBE list because they weren’t legitimate - - - you couldn’t prove they were legitimately MBE?

Mr. Gilliam: That’s right.

Councilman Jackson: Yet, for the Convention Center which predates the hotel, has been listed on this back side, and it has janitorial services, and it has MBE on the list of the work that would have already been done. It’s the Convention Center which is complete.

Mr. Gilliam: And the reason why they’re on that particular list is because that project and that report basically had been covered or closed I should say.

Councilman Jackson: Right.

Mr. Gilliam: Before we generated one for the hotel part.

Councilman Jackson: Sure, that’s what I’m saying. This is the precedent for this one. This one preceded - - - the Convention Center precedes the Hotel. We took ‘em off the hotel, because we couldn’t prove that they were minority.

Mr. Gilliam: I personally took them off. I wasn’t satisfied.

Councilman Jackson: Right, but on here, they got credit for being minority.

Mr. Gilliam: I think it was about $9,000.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, and it wasn’t a lot of money, and that’s what I was trying to say to Mr. Antee. For me, it wasn’t about the money, it was about the principle of Mr. Triple L for example, was on here for $5,900. He’s on here for $2.6 (million). I didn’t suggest that you were given him the $5,900 because that’s all he was able to handle. He was there for site mobilization. That’s what he did.

Mr. Gilliam: Under the work scope, you’re probably right.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, he did site mobilization.

Mr. Gilliam: Our sensibilities I think are the same.

Councilman Jackson: Right, it was legitimate. So, it was not about the quantity of the money, I’m just suggesting that there were some irregularities in my opinion. When you turn on the Convention Center, the next thing is you had I guess what was construction related. And then there was the second part that dealt with furniture, fixtures, and amenities. FF&Es by itself. What was the total amount of money spent on FF&E? You have any idea?

Mr. Gilliam: I do, I don’t have that folder with me, I have it at my desk.

Councilman Jackson: Ball park? Does anybody know? Mr. Antee may know.

Mr. Gilliam: It should be on the report that you have before you. It should be the very first sheet of FF&E.

Councilman Jackson: Do y’all see a total? I didn’t see a total.

Councilwoman Robertson: Are you talking about this one?

Mr. Gilliam: No, that’s the quarterly report. I broke that down for you, and I also broke that down - - -

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, you have two different ones. I have three different ones. Following that, you have the Fair Share DBE certified other than MBE. That’s the third group.

Mr. Gilliam: That’s right. But we were trying to give you full disclosure, because we have some companies that are not MBEs, and they are not Fair Share, but they’re MBE.

Councilman Jackson: And some of them utilize this program to graduate from the level of DBE, because of what they were able to earn on this project, I’m assuming.

Mr. Gilliam: That happens.

Councilman Jackson: Now, the issue I have then is - - - I don’t know - - - I’ve got $1,654, 340.36, I’ve got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 companies and it had a total spent on FF&E of $1,654,340. $1,604,000 of it was to one company, and then the 50,000 was spread between the other four companies in here. My question was this $1.6 (million), what percentage of the total furniture, fixtures, and amenities, does that represent?

Mr. Gilliam: I don’t have that figure for you, I just simply put it against the total expenditures.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, and the total expense was $66,000,000?

Mr. Gilliam: Yeah.

Councilman Jackson: Is that correct?

Mr. Gilliam: I don’t have that part, I didn’t bring it up with me.

Councilman Jackson: Let me see. Yeah, looks like $66,855,000 (inaudible) contract total. So, of course, $1.6(million) of that old total would certainly be very low. But I’m assuming that 13 - - - you had $13,000,000 on the first page, which was like 20%, I think. Somewhere around there, somewhere in the park. The whole total was 20.5%.

Mr. Gilliam: If you add up those three categories. I think I gave you three of them. But what I did Councilman at each one of those pages, I tried to make it accrual for you.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, I see that. I was just trying to find out that

Mr. Gilliam: So you can see what I’m doing, I was trying to give you total disclosure on it.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, I was just trying to find out, when you look at an aggregate list, one thing, but if you look at it by category as you’ve broken it down, it maybe 13.7 of what total number. What was the total construction number separate from the FF&E because that may have been a larger percentage than 20 of the construction portion of it, and certainly the 1.6 depending on how much the FF&E was maybe a minuscule percentage, I’m not sure. But looking at it aggregately, which is okay with me, because that’s what I’m saying is 20.5%. But I look at these different areas, because I’m just thinking about things that I’ve heard about the project when I came on to the Council, and the different things that we were going to do, and now none of those things have happened, but I’m just suggesting that I think that I’d like to talk to you and see if we can get some information before the next meeting, because I’d like to see some different specificity with regards to categorizing and how we categorize them and how much it is as a percentage of that particular category versus aggregately looking at the whole of it.

Mr. Gilliam: Because admittedly, we haven’t done it by work scope. We haven’t broken it out percentage wise by work scope. We simply took the consummate amount and factored that in.

Councilman Jackson: Alright now finally on the hotel, there is a statement that says we took some folks out of the hotel process thus reducing the percentage points. So, we’re going backwards instead of forward.

Mr. Gilliam: (Inaudible)

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, so it says to date, 51% of the projected goal has been spent with Fair Share Minority contracts. Do they mean of the goal for minorities?

Mr. Gilliam: As the goal for Fair Share and Minorities.

Councilman Jackson: That’s what I mean. For the goal of the people who fall in FSCMB, whatever. (Inaudible), in other words, over half the money that they’re going to get, or was projected to get has already been spent?

Mr. Gilliam: That’s right sir.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, so do you have any idea how much of the contract that was cancelled for rough carpentry? Or the engineer that wasn’t hired or something? How much of that - - - do we have an engineer on now, and has that been expended? I see it’s still on the proposed sheet. No - - - I don’t even see - - - the - - -.

Mr. Gilliam: The only ones that we have actually spent are the ones that are on your sheet.

Councilman Jackson: Okay.

Mr. Gilliam: The (inaudible) is still proposed.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, so - - - alright.

Mr. Gilliam: So it would leave one to believe that we still have a ways to go on this project in terms of Fair Share and MBE.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, it would do more than just give us that impression, and the fact is maybe I don’t understand. Okay, now help me with this and I’ll be done. $6,750,000 total? That’s the overall total of what we expect to spend with minorities, not the total of this page?

Mr. Gilliam: That’s right. Because each page is summarized for you. Because I believe Walton indicated back in the Spring, their total projection for you was something like 21 and some change percent. We have factored them out, because we have not seen progress. I think we brought that down some in terms of our projection for them.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, and maybe Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if the Council may disagree with me. But it seems like we’re going backwards instead of forward when I look at going from 20.4 to 20.2. To me that’s a regression and not a progression. And I’m done Mr. Gilliam. And that was the only thing I was trying as well illuminate is the fact that, that in fact, is in fact a regression, and not a progression. And so, I guess my concern is that we’re not embracing that as what it is either, and I’m not interested in a whole lot of song and dance about it, it’s just it is what it is. And so, I wanted to ask those questions, and I don’t know whether we should assume that somebody from Walton is going to be here the next time or not.

Councilman Hogan: That was my question for you. Mr. Antee, did you say a moment ago, a few minutes ago that Mr. Clark could be here at the next, perhaps at the Work Session maybe?

Mr. Antee: No, I did not say that. I said we would request for them to be here.

Councilman Hogan: Alright. Could you perhaps let us know if you find out before - - - you know, just as soon as you find out.

Mr. Antee: I’m going to email like I do every time there’s a request, saying your presence has been requested at the next Council Meeting. And when I get a response from them, I’ll forward a copy to the Council Members.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Jackson, Councilman Lester had some comments if you were done.

Councilman Jackson: Oh, I’m done.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Is Mr. Lafitte in?

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Lafitte, are you in the audience? No.

Councilman Lester: Okay. If someone could ask Mr. Lafitte to - - -

Councilman Hogan: Madam Clerk, perhaps you could - - - call and see if he would be able to come down.

Councilman Lester: I’m not going to hold the meeting up for that. I would just ask that someone put a call in. Okay, well they say he’s usually watching in his office, so we’ll ask that Mr. Lafitte come and join us, because I have some questions for him. And Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me, I don’t want to hold the meeting up for the questions I have for Mr. Lafitte, so we could proceed when he gets down here, and I’ll ask him those questions at that time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: We’re on Convention Center, Mr. Carrier is here, and I have a couple of questions for him. Perhaps that would take up the necessary time.

Mike I know you and I had this conversation, but for the benefit of the public, and those watching, and our local daily, would you summarize what you were explaining to me about contracts with local groups for one or two day events that are scheduled way out?

Mr. Mike Carrier: Well, it really doesn’t matter where the group is from, it matters what the event is. And we, the policies as we have given you all in the large binder that we provided you all several months ago, the booking policy, we book by priority. And the priority deals with the total sum of that business is, not just the convention center, but also hotel room nights. What’s the new economic impact coming in to the community. You could have a local group that has a high economic impact, because they’re bringing a lot of folks in. We recently had that with HTW, bringing a lot of their dealers in here. The situation is very simple. We choose or by policy, we do not book the events more than six months out, if it is a one day event. We don’t tie up the facilities for a one day event that might be 750 people for a dinner, at the risk of not being able to - - - or a group that might want to book that 14, 16, 18 months in advance at the risk of them not being able to take a group that is going to bring in a lot of folks staying in hotels, spending a lot of money over a multi-day period. We will book groups that have a single day event, such as a reception or a dinner. We will put them on the calendar 14 months ahead of time, but we will not go to contract until six months out. At the point that we go to contract with them, we still reserve the right to move them in the building to different space, if a higher priority group, that is a group that needs more hotel rooms or a larger space, etc., in the last event. And that is if a group comes in and we have no choice but to move someone out of the building, then we will work with them to identify another location to move them to, so that their event can still be held. That’s a very rare occasion. We tell groups this up front. We try to be very honest with them about it, that this is a possibility that this will happen. Hasn’t happened yet, it will happen at some point and time.

Councilman Walford: Let me stop you just a minute and ask. If you do end up having to cancel a group, and they’ve made a deposit. Their deposit’s refunded?

Mr. Carrier: Depends on what it is. If we have to cancel a group, if we ever have to move a group out because of another group coming in, we would, 99% of the time, I won’t say 100% because there’s nothing that is always or never, but 99% of the time, we would wind up helping that group move. We would take that money and apply it toward wherever they are going. We would help them identify space and move them to another location. We wouldn’t tell them, bye you’re out and good luck. We identify space where we can move them to and help them get there so that they can go ahead and have their event. And that’s standard in the industry. That’s what is done all over the country, not just by our company, but by facilities all over the country.

Councilman Walford: And this is all explained up front when they attempt to reserve a day. Thank you. That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Carrier.

Councilman Lester: Before Mr. Carrier leaves, I would be remiss if I didn’t say I appreciate your work in the last couple of days to resolve the issues related to helping Bishop Brandon bring Bishop T.D. Jakes in.

Mr. Carrier: No problem. I think the issue simply came down to the two ladies who were busy. One of them was busy the first three days of the week, the other was busy the last two days of the week, and they just couldn’t get their schedules together to spend an hour together that they spent this morning finalizing everything. And when I got back from lunch today, my understanding was that everything had been taken care of and everybody had what they needed. So, no problem.

Councilman Lester: Well, we do appreciate that, because obviously if we’re going to have people that are going to think enough of the City to bring an event of that magnitude to our convention center, we definitely want to exhaust every effort to make things easy for them. So, I really appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Carrier: No problem. Glad to. That’s part of what we do.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Lafitte.

Mr. Lafitte: Good afternoon.

Councilman Lester: Good afternoon Mr. Lafitte. On last Council Meeting, I asked you to do some research relative to obtaining subcontracts of Walton. And can you share with us the results of your research?

Mr. Lafitte: Yes I did peruse the contract with Walton, and I did not find anything in there that would allow us to get copies of the subcontractors agreement with the prime contract. As you know, the city has a contract with the prime, the prime being (inaudible) contracts with the various subcontracts. We do not have contractual relationships with the subs, only the prime. And there was no language that I saw in my perusal of the documents that would allow us to review those contracts. Normally, we would have an audit provision, in contracts, but for some reason there was not one in this one.

Councilman Lester: What I would ask is this Mr. Lafitte. And I appreciate your research. I don’t know who Counsel of Record is for Walton, but my request to you, and to the Administration would be as we call Mr. Clark, and ask him to come to our next Council Meeting, I would like for Counsel for Record, for Walton to come up. I did also hear what Councilman Jackson heard. So, and we’re on opposite ends of the dais. I did hear Mr. Clark at least intimate that we were having a contract management situation. In fact, I went to great lengths to ask you relative to contract management and clear up the fact that contract management on public projects is something that we don’t do in the State of Louisiana. I would simply say this to you and to the Administration by way of request. I think we can resolve a lot of these issues, with an inspection of the subcontracts. I mean, it doesn’t make sense for us to wonder what’s going on, they can show them to us. Now, if they’re concerned that the subcontracts are in fact work products, which I don’t believe that they are, but for the sake of argument, they believe that they are work products, I would be satisfied, if our City Attorney, Mr. Lafitte did an in camera inspection of these subcontracts, so that he could as a the legal representative from the City look at the subcontracts, and determine what the scope of work was and juxtaposed the scope of work against what they were paid to do. And I would be satisfied, that Mr. Lafitte would be knowledgeable enough because again, he is our legal representative from the City’s standpoint to inform us what these folks from the subcontractors standpoint were paid for and what work that they actually performed. And I think between Mr. Lafitte and Mr. Gilliam, that we could get down to the bottom of this. Because I am concerned as Councilman Jackson is concerned that you know, if we’re going to have a Fair Share Program, and we’re going to say that Bob is going to provide widgets, then Bob needs to provide widgets. If Bob is not providing widgets, we shouldn’t say that we’re getting - - - that Bob is providing widgets when Bob is managing the contract to provide widgets, because that is a prostitution of the Fair Share Program. And I don’t think, I know I don’t want to see that, and I don’t think anybody on the Council wants to see that, and I think we need to deal with that. So my request to you Mr. Lafitte, and to you also Mr. Antee is to request that Counsel of Record for Walton provide an in camera inspection of all subcontracts to Mr. Lafitte, and to Mr. Gilliam so that we could look at those and get something together. And certainly if everyone is dealing form the top of the deck, there should not be a negative situation. And that shouldn’t be something that they are concerned about. So, that would be my request.

Mr. Antee: Mr. Chairman, in response to that, we certainly will make that request, and we agree that that is a fair and reasonable request, and we will do everything that we can to make that.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lafitte, were you here the date that we’re talking about, when the situation happened with Mr. Clark?

Mr. Lafitte: I don’t think I was actually in the Chambers when that occurred. I probably was upstairs, as I’m up and down most of the time during Council Meeting, I can’t say for certain that I was here.

Councilman Jackson: Right, well my question was centered around whether or not those activities bordered on fraudulence? Because if you’ve got a second, let me share this with you. I asked Mr. Clark, I said let me ask you this. Is it possible, and I’m reading from the minutes, “Let me ask you this, is it possible, and maybe Mr. Antee can help you with this answer, cause it may be or maybe Ms. Glass, may be from a legal perspective. Is it possible that a general contractor could contract with Company A, who may be Acme Company, who happens to be a minority company. Then that minority company could turn around and contract with the Bacme Company, who happens to not be a minority who does all that minority’s work?” Mr. Clark said, “Sure.” I then said “That’s possible to do that?” He said, “That’s possible, yeah.” I come back and say “Is that to you all meeting the tenants of Fair Share if that were to happen in your opinion, does that meet the spirit of Fair Share? Just in your opinion.” He says “In my opinion, that’s the way that the spirit of Fair Share has been driven by not only us, but every contractor in this city.” I then say, “So, the idea is to get a minority company who can find a majority company to do the work, but yet, they get the credit for it?” Mr. Clark says “They manage the contracts. They are managers of several contracts.” I come back and say, “So, they move paper, but they don’t do the work?” Mr. Clark said, “In some cases, they actually do the work, in other cases they manage the contract.” So, I guess that’s my question. Whether or not, that’s something that is the City’s policy on how we do business, whether we see any problem with that at all?

Mr. Lafitte: No, that’s not the City’s policy as far as how we do.

Councilman Jackson: But is that pretty clear that, that’s not the City’s policy based on I read it to you. I’m not making this up.

Mr. Lafitte: I don’t believe that’s the City’s policy, and I don’t think that’s the intent of the Fair Share Program.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Antee you see what I’m saying, I’m reading from the minutes now, and that’s exactly what happened.

Mr. Antee: And I agree, and that’s why we have Mr. Gilliam go and make sure that everybody that’s listed on here is actually performing that work and not just pushing the paper. I agree with you in that.

Councilman Jackson: So, now you get a sense that that’s actually happening when Mr. - - - I guess if you all are satisfied with it, I just don’t believe you say something that you’re not actually doing. Particularly if it’s not very cute. I just think you may have - - - if that’s the case, I’m not sure, maybe y’all feel like you’ve done adequate investigation. I don’t know, but as a Council Person, I’m inclined to say that you know, to have you do the investigation is one thing, and perhaps what we’d like to do is have an investigation that’s independent of what you have done, because obviously we’ve done - - - this is not our first project, and we’ve been in contract with these folks before. I don’t know that I necessarily have the confidence that things are always what they say they are, because they weren’t the first time. So, I don’t know and I talked to - - - and I’m going to talk to - - - thank you Mr. Lafitte, to Mr. Thompson about whether or not it’s possible to have an independent person do the same type investigation. And again, as Councilman Lester said, if everything is on the up and up, and everybody is dealing from the top of the deck, we ought to find the same thing that they found as well.

Mr. Antee: And Mr. Chairman, we don’t have a problem with independent, but to give you an example. Willie Douglas, cement finishing, $1.5 (million). Of that $1.5 (million) Mr. Douglas has got to go buy the cement. So, if he goes to building supply and buys the cement, that is a majority owned company.

Councilman Jackson: But how do we know that Mr. Antee?

Mr. Antee: But it’s still under that number.

Councilman Jackson: I guess my question is how do we know that Mr. Antee. We’ve just - - - the City Attorney just told us we don’t have privilege to those contracts. How would we even know that that’s what their response to them, because we’d have to know what’s in the contract, and I know the City Attorney just told me, we don’t have privilege to those contracts.

Mr. Antee: We have (inaudible).

Councilman Jackson: So can we just assume that? If we do have it, I need to get a copy of it.

Mr. Antee: We don’t have the actual contract with Willie Douglas. We do have, and they have to provide a break down of who they send that money to.

Councilman Jackson: But where is that?

Mr. Antee: But we don’t have the actual contract. The contractor is required to provide who the subcontractor is, and how much they get, and then the subcontractor’s got to provide who the sub-subcontractor is and the sub-sub - - - is that not correct?

Councilman Jackson: Who do they provide that to?

Mr. Antee: They provide that to the contractor, who then provides that to the Fair Share Office.

Councilman Jackson: But we asked - - -

Mr. Antee: What they don’t provide is the actual contract between them.

Councilman Jackson: Well in other words, let me ask you this.

Mr. Antee: They provide the amount of money, but not the actual contract.

Councilman Jackson: So, in other words, you could produce for me, something that tells me that Mr. Douglas who is the subcontractor of Walton did business with two other people, and you could tell me who those two other people were?

Mr. Lafitte: Yeah, they have a monthly report that is tendered to the Fair Share Office listing all of the subcontractors, the total amount of their contract, and how much has been paid to them. We don’ t have the actual contract. It was my understanding - - -

Councilman Jackson: No, no, I’m saying

Mr. Lafitte: From Councilman Lester, that he wanted the actual contract.

Councilman Jackson: Sounds like what you said is this. That you get a report from the GC of all of his subs - - -

Mr. Lafitte: Right.

Councilman Jackson: And the money they spent.

Mr. Lafitte: The money that they spent with the subs.

Councilman Jackson: So, you also know the money they’re spending with whatever other subs? In other words, you know the other subs beneath the second level? You know the third and fourth tier subs?

Mr. Lafitte: Mr. Gilliam can answer that, the reports go to Mr. Gilliam.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Gilliam.

Mr. Gilliam: (Inaudible) reports are all in the monthly reports.

Mr. Lafitte: Right, and we get those reports every month.

Councilman Jackson: Come on. So, you could tell me for example, lets just say the example that Mr. Antee used, Willie Douglas. He spent $1.5 (million) He had to buy something. So, I’m assuming they’re showing you who they made checks out to?

Mr. Gilliam: No, we don’t have it on the monthly report to that extent. What we have it something that you provided for us via the ordinance. It provides that they must give us a monthly Subcontractor Payment Utilization Report. And that not only deals with the subcontractor level, it goes to sub-sub, and sub-subs of how many far we have to go down. For instance, on the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel. We have 14, I believe of those monthly reports. That’s how we generate the information that you’re looking at. And each one is sufficiently detailed simply to the amount of what was in the projected total, how much has been paid for the particular month, and how much has been paid on an accrual basis.

Councilman Jackson: Right, and I don’t know, I’ll have to go back and look at the minutes again. I’ve asked for that information more than one time. More than one time so that we couldn’t tell who was beneath who, beneath who, beneath who. Okay? Today, it seems as if - - -

Mr. Gilliam: You’ve given us that authority in July 27, 1999 via the ordinance.

Councilman Jackson: Well, the previous Council.

Mr. Gilliam: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: So, my issue becomes then when I asked for, then why can’t we get it? And this is not - - - I will tell you, this is not the first time that I’ve asked the question about who the subcontractors were doing business with. I know and maybe my colleagues can correct me, but I’ve asked more than one time.

Mr. Gilliam: Well, it should be. In fact it is in the report that you have. It is given at different levels. It may not say sub-sub or sub-sub, but each one is a subcontractor that is listed there. And if you would, Councilman Jackson, I would be more than pleased. I have always - - - if you want all this information, of course, we try to pull it in terms of some kind of spreadsheet so that it can make some visual sense to you.

Councilman Jackson: Right, but here’s what I’m trying to say. Here’s what I’m saying Sam. Here’s what you have in here, and Councilman Robertson gave me this, but here’s what I want to get them to understand as well. What you have here is say Wicker Construction is the subcontractor to Walton, okay? Both of them are majority business. Now, they go and get and put two minority businesses under here, lets say T&M, and somebody else under here. This doesn’t show us who T&M’s doing business with. It just shows us that T&M plus two other companies are subs for this guy.

Mr. Gilliam: But it also shows you the work scope and it shows you the amount that they’ve gotten.

Councilman Jackson: Exactly, but it doesn’t tell me whether they did the work. Are you following me?

Mr. Gilliam: I follow you, and I think I see where you’re going. And the protections that we’ve got is the authority that you’ve given us. There’s a disclaimer on each one of these. And it simply says an authorized agent of a particular company has to sign it. And it says this. This is the authority you gave us. It says, “It is hereby certified that the above listed firms have been utilized by our company in the amounts represented above and that the information contained herein is complete and accurate.” And in checking with Counsel, Mr. Lafitte says hey, that’s a certified document.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, but it doesn’t say you are certifying that such and such did the work. It says that you’re certifying that they did get that check in that amount for that scope of work. Is that correct?

Mr. Gilliam: I think it does say that.

Councilman Jackson: I didn’t hear it, maybe you have to say it again, because it doesn’t say - - -

Mr. Gilliam: It says that the “above listed firms have been utilized by our company in the amounts represented above.”

Councilman Jackson: Right. And so the subcontractor from a general contract could tell you, yes we have. They have been utilized and if what they’re utilized for is the same system that we talked about, managing the contract, then they’ve been utilized for that purpose. Here’s what I’m saying Sam. Understand this. It doesn’t have nothing to do with whether y’all kept records or not. It becomes a mixed bag when somebody says it’s possible to do a certain thing. Then I’m suggesting that if the person said it’s possible. I mean, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it doesn’t matter how we prepare it. At the end of the day, it still got to be a duck. And that’s what concerns me. I can’t say ‘well y’all came back two weeks later, and y’all got this thing together, now it’s all good.’ The fact that somebody would make that kind of a comment suggest to me that this is not again, an uncustomary practice.

Mr. Gilliam: Well, my answer to that Mr. Jackson is in doing my investigation, as I said, we interview each one of these people who we’ve got - - - every last one of them face-to-face. And one of those contractors, subcontractors happen to have been a woman business, and when I called her, her idea was the same, her reaction was the same as yours, and as mine. To use her words, she said, “the comment that was stated by the representative from Walton, she says, in terms of the work scope that I’ve performed is idiotic.” She says, “I work.” And we would suggest to you, any of these people on this listing, we would say, an independent external agency would talk to each one of them and lets see what they say. But I would say that the ones that are here, we’ve investigated, and to our satisfaction. We’ve gone over, and we’ve visited, we’ve inspected. They’ve done the work scope.

Councilman Jackson: Alright, last thing. I’d like to give you another investigative assignment Mr. Gilliam. Could you find out for me the day and the date of the signed contract, the date that everything happened that Triple L for example, specifically hired the engineer that Mr. Antee said that the group that was cancelled before them, for non-performance. The letter that they received. I’ve got a copy of it, I can forward to you. I think you all may have a copy of it to. Said - - - did you ever see a copy of the letter?

Mr. Gilliam: No, I didn’t.

Councilman Jackson: Well you ought to ask Mr. Walton, or Mr. Clark to send you a copy of the letter, because I just thought about it Mr. Antee, it’s interesting that when they sent him a letter telling him why they were canceling him, they said for convenience. It didn’t say for non performance. I would think a company who was not performing would get a very specific letter that says for non performance, Section A point 1, 2, 3 says you should have hired this engineer, you have not done it. But while we appreciate doing business with you, we have to expedite this process, and so for nonperformance, we’ll cancel your contract. There is a paragraph, and I can get you a copy if Mr. Antee can’t get it, I can get you a copy of that, that says that they were cancelled for convenience. So, I asked the question what is the definition of convenience, and I find it’s just that. And as a matter of fact, if you go back and review the minutes, I’ve got them on my desk, where Mr. Clark - - - Mr. Antee, you’ll remember this, I’ve got these minutes as well. These are interesting. He says to me, “they cancelled them because they found a local company, and that it would make more sense, and it meets the tenants of Fair Share or their program to go with a local company versus somebody from out of town. I think that’s what he said. He said, versus somebody from out of town. I’ve got the minutes to that. So, I’m going to make sure that my documents - - - I referred all that, because I’m going to write you all a letter so that you’ll know that this is the case. He said - - - and I then I need you all to reconcile this whole Council for nonperformance business, because people need to know that we’re dealing from the top of the deck. And when you give me this information at one meeting, and three months later, you give me this information, I’m just not sure. So, initially, Mr. Clark stood there and said we cancelled them because we believe it would be better to use somebody local. Better to use somebody who’s in town, because it’s just better like that. And I said to him, how often do you all do this? I said, typically when you have a contract, do you cancel these companies? He said 99.9%, I’m quoting, he said, “99.9% of the time, we didn’t do that. I said, have you ever exchanged a majority for a minority? And I’ll get you the minutes. It’s interesting reading now that I think about it. And so he said, they were cancelled. I would think if he could stand flat footed and look me square in the eye and say Mr. Jackson, they may have been a good company, but we needed an engineer. And I’ll get the minutes to this meeting, because Mr. Antee said it better than I could. They cancelled it because they needed an engineer, and they didn’t ever get them the engineer, they didn’t perform. And so I was thinking, Mr. Clark could stand right there and look at me and say Mr. Jackson, they didn’t perform. We asked them to do it, we gave them a chance, they may be a good company, but they didn’t perform. Instead he stood there and told me, they cancelled them for convenience. Because they’d found a local company who could do the same - - - you remember? You may not have been here, but if you Councilmen remember, I said, well how could you be bidding the contract for a company if a company already has the contract? I said how could, you know, they could do it for less? How could you even know? And they went through a whole - - - Mr. Clark did a song and dance about that deal and all that. And so you know, and today, very specifically, Mr. Antee said it was nonperformance. They should have gotten an engineer, they didn’t get it. I don’t know, I guess what I will give you as investigatory homework would be how do you reconcile these comments? How do you reconcile these rationales for how we cancel for this reason?

Mr. Gilliam: Mr. Jackson, I’ve found gross inconsistencies too.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Mayor, does that confuse you?

Mayor Hightower: I’m with you.

Councilman Jackson: You clear or not? You understand how it could be confused?

Mayor Hightower: We’re clear.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, you know so - - -

Mr. Gilliam: I think we’ve all found gross inconsistencies.

Councilman Jackson: I’m just worried about it being just kind of clear as mud. Because I know I’m correct. I mean, I don’t know everything, but I just read well, and I’ve read the minutes, and I just try to compare them all, and I’m telling you that there are three different sets of minutes. And just like I said about a duck - - - if it sounds like a lie, and it looks like a lie, you can dress it up to be the truth, but at the end of the day, it’s just a lie in the truth’s clothes. That’s my concern, and maybe I’m wrong for that. But I think from a fiduciary perspective, I at least have the responsibility to ask those questions. Guess what? I may not even be able to right what I think to be a wrong, but I will be John Brown if I don’t ask to find out and be sure, not that it has anything to do with this, but that hence forth other people who serve will say the same thing, and that we will look to try to be sure that when we say it’s something, that it’s really so. Because rather than being progressive and moving forward, what concerns me is that we haven’t moved backwards. And have not really taken steps backwards and that people have not progressed, but in fact regressed over time. At least while I’m in office, and that’s a sad commentary. And that’s my concern. Thank you.

Mr. Gilliam: And I assure you the same sensibilities Mr. Jackson.
Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment, and Councilman Jackson asked if I was clear on that. I am, but I’m also clear and I think the general public and the Council ought to be clear on our Fair Share intent, the day it was put into effect. Councilman Carmody was here at the time, was to establish a program that opened the door that lent a helping hand to companies that might not otherwise be able to participate in City contracts, from the smallest to the largest. And make no mistake about it, our commitment was there then, still is there today. You’ve heard Mr. Gilliam, you’ve heard the documentation, the follow up, the trips, everything, the inspections, everything they do to be sure to the best of their ability that these contracts are all legitimate. And what Mr. Clark stood there and said the other day, Mr. Clark stood there and said. That’s not Mr. Antee, that’s not Mr. Gilliam, that’s not Mr. Lester, or Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Hogan. That’s what Mr. Clark had to say. The other thing I think you ought to take comfort in is you heard Mr. Gilliam say today, he heard those comments that Councilman Jackson was mentioning, and what did he say he did? He immediately investigated them. Not with me prompting him to do it, not with Mr. Antee prompting him to do it, because that’s his job, he takes it seriously, so does his assistant Karen Barnes. They both bust tail everyday. That’s all they do. It’s not their job to do anything else. Zero. Nothing else. It’s their job to push, inspect, promote, recruit, Fair Share companies to do business with the City. The program’s probably not perfect. The program was pioneered by that gentleman and his assistant, at the instruction of this Mayor, CAO, and the prior Council. So, what will we have a problem now and then? We probably will. Will something slip through the cracks? Probably will. Just like it does in your business, or at your house. But I think that we you can all, and we can all see that Mr. Gilliam is well in tune with what’s going on, on the jobs. Again, they’ve been there, they’ve seen that, they’ve done everything within their power and their ability to be sure that this program is what this program was set up to be. The hotel certainly is no exception to that. And it’s not with my prompting. It’s a commitment that he had when he took the job. It’s a commitment that he continues to have, and it’s not because it is his job, it’s in here. It’s something he believes in, it’s something he works toward, it’s something he takes pride in and he takes ownership in. And I think he certainly displayed that today again, with his prompt reaction after hearing Mr. Clark’s comments. So, I don’t think the public or the Council or anybody else ought to think for one minute that this program is disingenuine by any stretch of the imagination. It’s come a long way, it’s had some growing pains and most importantly, it’s yielded results. So, I think we can stand behind the program, the program should continue, it should always be worked upon to improve upon it, but it should always continue to strive to build capacity in a community that’s had trouble building capacity in the past, and I firmly believe that that’s happened.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Mayor’s comments, but I’m still not sold on that. It sounds good, but again, I’m just not sold on that. I think it is what it is. I agree with though, I think it ought to stay around, but I don’t think it ought to stay around in the same shape or form. I think it ought to be legitimately something that we can measure. Today, it’s not really. I thought it was before a few weeks ago, but I don’t think it’s something you can measure. I think it’s something Mr. Gilliam and them, and I don’t want to get anybody mixed up about it as I said when he was up here. Certainly, I don’t think it’s about Mr. Gilliam or Ms. Barnes in the office, I think it’s about what people do once they have those contracts. And so I don’t think anyway, shape or form it’s anything negative on what they’ve done. The problem hadn’t been with them. Problem’s been with these contractors who have stood here and told us what they do. Now, if we’re going to be - - - it’s Mr. Clark saying it, but he just revealed his untransformed thought process, and whether we like it or not, we’re in business with them, and we’re in business with people who have these untransformed processes and thoughts. So, I just think we ought to take responsibility for it, and move from there. If we, in my opinion, got a lot of work to do and I hope that this next Administration will certainly look to it with some seriousness and try to be sure, because we owe it to all businesses, both majority and minority to do a better job than we have. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, I believe we have the Youth Council Members showing up. Was there something you wanted to recognize? If there’s no objections form Council Members, we’d want to recognize the members of the Youth Council.

Councilman Jackson: I think if we could, Judge Emanuel is here, Ms. Ball - - - is Ms. Ball here? Judge Emanuel, if you would., you could just come right here on this side from this side door right here, if you’d like to - - - robe in there? Oh, you okay? Okay. I’d like to get the new members of the Youth Council, if you could, all the new members. Those who have not been sworn in. Ms. Ball if you get the right people up front please, we want to move forward as expeditiously as we can. If we could Judge, if you would stand behind the podium, we’ll have them stand up on the - - - up here, and face you. Thank you very much. Judge Emanuel, if you would, at this time, you will swear in our new members of the Youth Council, and it’s in your hands.

Judge Emanuel: Mr. Chairman and members of the Council, Mr. Mayor and to our delightful and promising students and citizens, it is my pleasure to not only encourage you, but to congratulate you for your selection. Would you please raise your right hands and repeat proudly after me.

Judge Emanuel gave the following Oath to the new members of the Youth Council:

I (state your name) do solemnly affirm to accept the responsibilities, and the obligations associated with the City of Shreveport Youth Council, and I will humbly and cheerfully, and solemnly perform my duties as a member of the City of Shreveport Youth Council, so help me God.

Judge Emanuel: Congratulations to each of you.

Councilman Jackson: Ms. Ball, do you all have a Chair Person at this time? You don’t. You don’t have a past Chair Person here either? Alright. Oh, they graduated already. Yeah, this is the next group. Alright. Thank y’all so much. You can be seated.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Bowie, I saw him a few minutes ago. He’s left the Chamber, has he come back in? Is anyone here from Community Development? Does anyone have anything about Property Standards issues? Any questions for Ms. Moore today. We covered a couple of things yesterday Ms. Moore, and I honestly don’t believe we have anything for you today.

Councilman Jackson: Ms. Moore, there was a case for Mr. Winn, I believe was his name?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winn was here earlier, and I spoke to him. And he said he was going to withdraw his appeal because he apparently had talked to somebody and he was satisfied that the property should be torn down.

Councilman Jackson: I just wanted to make you aware of that.

Ms. Moore: Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: Ms. Moore, well there’s Mr. Bowie right there. I’m sorry, that’s exactly who I was looking for. Mr. Bowie, if I could please sir a quick reminder to you. I know that we’ve gone over this for the last few months, but again, it looks like District C is winding up on the short end of the stick when it comes to Code Enforcement and inspections. We again look like we’ve garnered about six violations over the last two weeks.

Mr. Bowie: Yes sir. And like I say, we’re trying to get that corrected through DP.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, but if we could, again I appreciate all the work y’all’ve got, and you got an entire city to take care of, but there is one-seventh of it that looks like it’s being overlooked. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilwoman Robertson: I just have a quick question. When you say you’re working with DP, there’s more that should have been cited, they’re just not on the printout?

Mr. Bowie: Yes Ma’am.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Bowie, yesterday, I had given you one on Bert Kouns Industrial Loop. Could you refresh my memory quickly at to the process. Don’t we have to notify the property owner before it’s actually - - - we go out and board it up?

Mr. Bowie: Yes. Yes we do.

Councilman Hogan: And what is the timeframe? The constituent called me this morning and asked the timeframe? Do you know about how long it could be before the property is actually secured.

Mr. Bowie: 45-60 days before the actual work is started on a board up or securing. We have to go through a notification, and then we go to purchasing and bid it out, so before we actually get out there and start hammering the boards up on the house, it takes that long.

Public Hearing: None

Confirmations and/or Appointments, Adding Legislation to the Agenda, and Public Comments.

Confirmations and/or Appointments:

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I know we’re going into Public Comments now?

Councilman Hogan: Yes sir, I received a note that there are a couple of people you need to have. Okay?

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

1. Resolution No. 171 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute amendment Number 2 to the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the Friends of the Municipal Auditorium, Inc. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 172 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the renewal of an agreement between the City of Shreveport and KPMG, LLP for an External Audit of the City of Shreveport for Fiscal Year January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, authorizing the Mayor to execute an engagement letter evidencing said renewal, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 173 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement for the financing of vehicles and equipment and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Hogan to add Resolution No(s) 171, 172, and 173 of 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Thompson, as I recall, there was an item no. 167 that was going to be added. Was that not going to be included with the added? Introduction of Resolutions not to be adopted prior to November 14^th.

Mr. Thompson: I believe there was a motion yesterday to accomplish that.

Councilman Hogan: We did. You’re right. That’s right. Thank you.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. Brody Farris: (2600 Citadel Plaza, Houston, TX) I’m here to represent Weingarten Realty who is the landlord of the Westwood Shopping Center on Jewella and Greenwood, and the I guess the case we’re working with was Cash America Pawn who is looking to be rezoned for a 12,000 square foot vacancy that we have in our center, that’s been there for approximately three years. Just to give some history. Some of you may know this, you may not. Weingarten Realty has been a citizen of Shreveport for well over 50 years, as has Cash America Pawn in their existing location for approximately 20 years. We’re just asking the Council to give a vote of confidence to Weingarten Realty and Cash America. Two public traded companies to bring something to the community that we can feel the community can be proud of. Weingarten, we’re accountable to our customers, our retailers, and more importantly to our citizens of Shreveport, and in no way are we looking to do anything that would jeopardize or hurt the community or it’s citizens. We’re al long term operator, we’re not a short term operator. So, we’re looking to bring something to the shopping center that would add to the benefit and attract future, local and national retailers to our development as well as some of the other developments that we have in the community. We have Cash America in several of our other locations throughout the U.S. They’ve been nothing but an asset in those other locations as we feel they have in their existing location on Jewella and Greenwood. Cash America’s new facility will put in hundreds of thousands of dollars into the community by way of labor and materials when they build out the new facility. And it’s going to be a nice new clean facility that the community can be proud of. We’ve got a vote of confidence from our anchor tenant there, in the shopping center, Super One. They’ve exercised their option on their lease this last year, knowing we’re working with Cash America, so I think that gives definitely a vote of confidence to our other large tenants in the shopping center that they are aware of that we’re working with and they feel comfortable with the decisions we’ve made and who we’re working with. I visited with many of the tenants in our center, as well as the surrounding centers, as well as customers that are shopping in the area. All of them have given me positive feedback and response that they’re excited about us bringing something new to the community that’s going to increase revenues through taxes, employ more people of the community, and put some money back in the community as well by way of some of the things I mentioned with the construction, and then of course the taxes that’s already mentioned. The space has set there for three years, and we feel it would definitely be a nice addition to that end of the shopping center which is already what we think is a nice development that we’ve owned and managed for well over 50 years. We do have a signed lease with Cash America, contingent upon the City Council’s approval, and we just ask that you give a vote of confidence to Weingarten Realty and Cash America to bring what we think would be a nice new addition to the community and to the citizens there.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Farris. You said just a moment ago, that you had negotiated a lease, and it was contingent upon approval from the Council?

Mr. Farris: That’s correct.

Councilman Hogan: What is the term of the lease?

Mr. Farris: As far as length?

Councilman Hogan: Yes. How many years?

Mr. Farris: I believe it’s a ten year term.

Councilman Hogan: Full with instruments to renew or - - -

Mr. Farris: Yes sir.

Councilwoman Robertson: Has there been any renovations currently done to your premises before this lease was done for this tenant? Had there been any renovations done?

Mr. Farris: In this particular space that you’re referring to?

Councilwoman Robertson: Uh huh, yeah.

Mr. Farris: We’ve done some just to make the space more attractive and marketable from when the drug store left, so we’ve definitely gone in there and cleaned some of the floors, and put some paint into it, and cleaned some of the restrooms and so forth, so it would be more marketable when we’re bringing in potential tenants to the development, yes.

Councilwoman Robertson: But nothing specific to Cash America.

Mr. Farris: No.

Councilman Jackson: You said again, you talked to - - -? Who did you say you talked to?

Mr. Farris: You know, every time I’m in the shopping center as I did today with our tenants seeing how their business is going, and you seeing if there is anything that we can deliver from the management side. And we mentioned that I’ve been working with a particular user in the area, and would bring somebody to that space, and they knew the type of use, and they were very positive.

Councilman Jackson: You told them who you were working with?

Mr. Farris: We try not to disclose the actual tenant. I was eventually given the liberty to disclose that by Cash America, but initially, when we made the conversations, it was just about particular use, it wasn’t specifically Cash America. We’ve since been given since we have a lease signed with Cash America permission to go out and disclose who we’re working with, so with that being said, we still received positive feedback from the tenants and just customers shopping there in the center. And we’d like to feel we have a good relationship with out tenants, because of the type of development we deliver to them.

Councilman Jackson: So, you talked to the tenants, and then just kind of arbitrarily people who were shopping. Is that what you said?

Mr. Farris: Naturally, you’ll have tenants that are in there and, you know be visiting with you when you’re visiting with the manager or the owner.

Councilman Jackson: Now, the other thing you said is that it was going to bring something to the community, add something I guess to the community. But you haven’t talked to anybody who lives in the community?

Mr. Farris: By way of the customers, I would sense that most of them are your constituents, are the members of that community who shop in that area. So, I’m making that assumption, but yes, the customers that shop there.

Councilman Jackson: But you haven’t gone out with a deliberate intent to talk to the people who live in the neighborhood?

Mr. Farris: We tried to impose that from my position. It’s really not my position to do so. I’m just trying to deliver the information that I’ve gathered when I’m in the development doing my normal duties there as the (inaudible) manager of the property.

Councilman Jackson: And so, any of the neighborhood people contact you at all about saying they either support it or they don’t.

Mr. Farris: I haven’t. The feedback that I’ve been given is by way of the customers and the retailers there, which has been nothing but positive because obviously there’s a vacancy there, it brings more traffic in there, so usually that’s what we look for in a multiple tenant development. For everybody to feed off each other, and utilize that cross shopping.

Councilman Jackson: And I want to just clarify. You talk about taxes. You’re saying it’s benefit to us because of taxes. I’m assuming what you mean is that somehow or another, they’re going to have greater sales in that area than they do in their current location. And that will increase the sales tax. Because we’re not losing anything from property taxes. I mean the property taxes are not going to change at all. We still - - -

Mr. Farris: By way of sales taxes.

Councilman Jackson: You’re talking about sales taxes in the hope that there will be an increase. Because for us, you have to understand this. The pawn shop is here now, we’re talking about moving it here. Okay? And when you move it from here to here, if you move all the sales from here to here, meaning - - - it’s like rearranging seats on the Titanic. No real improvement unless you in fact are sure that there is going to be some increase. And I don’t know if the sale to the tenant is that by having this base, you’ll get more people, and if that is the case, then that kind of feeds back into our concern about proliferation, is what we were concerned about as well.

Mr. Farris: Okay, to answer your question, yes, that was based upon sales taxes generated, just naturally being - - - they’ve grown out of their existing location, we think that there would be an increase in sales, just naturally because of a little bit larger store to accommodate their growth.

Councilman Jackson: Have they talked to you about if this deal doesn’t work about finding another place?

Mr. Farris: As far as Cash America?

Councilman Jackson: Yes.

Mr. Farris: No, we haven’t discussed that. You know we’re both (inaudible) on getting before us accomplished as far as getting y’all’s approval, so.

Councilman Jackson: So, they haven’t talked about any other place or anything else?

Mr. Farris: I can’t speak for them, but we haven’t, no.

Mr. Kenneth Smith: (4425 Finley Drive) Just wanted to reiterate that we’re simply asking you to allow us to basically move across the street into a facility that’s going to allow us to improve our business, and better serve the needs of the customers within that neighborhood. We have been unanimously been approved by the MPC on two occasions prior to or since the beginning of this process. We were planning on renovating the space that we’re talking about. It’s going to be in the neighborhood of $250-300,000 to make the improvements, to bring the space up to our standards. So we’re planning on making a substantial investment to improve our business. If you - - - of course the big concern is the residents that are directly affected behind that shopping center, and while we haven’t gone out and asked any feelings of those customers, I did pull some records from our current location. The five streets that are most directly affected, that’s Grove, Claiborne, Woodrow, Merwin, and Oak Crest. Just did some background on the business that residents of those streets have done with us, during the past two years, I found that residents from those five street addresses 47 customers have gotten loans from us, an additional 25 have done sales transactions, and 22 have done a combination of loans and sales transactions. So those customers are - - - those residents are already a part of our customer base, they know what we do, they use our services. So my assumption would be that since they use our service, there would be no mass objection to that. Since our first request to relocate was denied by Councilman Jackson, we have tried to visit with him on several occasions. Our government relations department, and we’ve been unable to do so. We really would liked to have addressed his concerns. Again, just requesting this relocation and improve our business, and better serve the community. Your time and consideration is appreciated.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester to suspend the rules to allow comments concerning non-agenda items. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Ms. Patricia Brown: (3405 Mt. Bethel Rd) Okay, I’m going to try to do this in three minutes, but I don’t think I’ll be able to. But I want to thank the Mayor and the Council for allowing me to speak I came today, because I have a complaint against the Shreveport Police Department, and at the onset I want to recognize Chief Campbell here, and I want to say at the beginning, I think we have a fine Chief of Police now, and a good police department, but there are a few bad apples in the bunch, and I’m talking about a bad one today. I had an encounter on Sunday at the State Fair Grounds Stadium, a battle of the bands was going on and I was out there to support my daughter, that plays in Fair Park Band. My husband and I arrived there, we were one of the first ones to get to the gate. At 2:00, they let us in shortly after, and I went to the back that I usually do, smoke during the games, during the breaks, I went to the back fence behind the concession stand, and two officers were standing there. And I went up and I asked them, I said is it okay if I smoke back here, because this is where they allow me to smoke at during the games. And the officer said, no you can’t smoke today. So, I respected that, and I went to the front where you walk out, where you come in and out, and there were several officers there, so I asked them so I wouldn’t be in violation. I say, is there a designated area out here that I can smoke. And they said well, you’re outside, so you basically can smoke anywhere as long as you’re away from the public. I say, so do I have to go outside or can I go out there behind the concessions stand by the gate, and they side sure. So, when I got back there, those two officers said if you light up a cigarette, we’re going to issue a citation. I said, well I’m confused because the officer said that I could come back here and smoke. So, one of the officers got on his radio and radio’s the LT, and asked can you smoke out here today. So the LT said you can smoke as long as you’re in the back away from the people, you can’t smoke up in the bleachers. So, he said well go on and smoke. But that wasn’t my beef with the police department. After my daughter performed which was about 5:30, I went back outside my sister and I to smoke. As I went towards the back gate to smoke, the officer that I have a complaint with was standing in front of the concession stand, and he was about over there, and my sister and I were walking to go to smoke. And I told my sister, I leaned over and I said “that’s the officer that didn’t want me to smoke.” He heard - - - he didn’t hear. My sister turned and looked at him, and he got upset. And he hollered and yelled, and he said at me. He said, are you talking about me? And I turned and I said, sir, I’m not speaking to you. He said, if you’re talking to me, I’ll have your Black A thrown out. And I want to say it’s not a Black or White issue, it’s a right or wrong, because this was a Black Police Officer. And I said sir, I was not talking to you, and I proceeded to walk. He ran up behind me, grabbed my arms, put them behind me and put me in handcuffs. And he started walking with me. And I kept asking him, sir, why are you doing this to me? I didn’t say any thing to him, My sister kept asking him, why are you doing this? And he told her, if you don’t shut up, I’m going to have your Black A thrown out of here. So by the time we got up to where the little gate is that divides the concession stand to where you walk underneath there, I said, please loosen this up, you’re hurting me. He said shut up and he slammed my face into that gate. And when I went to the news media, they said that I was upset because of excessive force. I’m not upset because of excessive force, I’m upset because it was - - - my sister got upset and she went inside to get my husband. And my husband and some of my church members and my children all ran out. And my husband was walking towards us, and a female officer stopped him, she said back up. So my husband backed up. He said I just want to know what’s going on with my wife. Which any husband would do. And the lady said, well just give us a minute and we’ll explain it to you. Well, she really couldn’t explain it, because she had just walked up. She didn’t really know what was going on. And my husband kept saying what’s going on with my wife. And this same officer left me and went and pushed my husband like this. Kicked him by his legs and wrestled him to the ground for no reason. And then he flipped him over and put handcuffs behind his back. And my husband kept saying what did she do? What have I done and my babies were standing there screaming, please let my daddy up, please let my daddy up. And all of this was because he just got upset because my sister and I was talking and we turned - - - my sister turned and looked in his face, so evidently he was watching me as I walked jus to get upset. And when I went to Internal Affairs, the investigator said police officers leave everyday knowing they can be cursed out, talked about, thrown the finger at or anything. And that was out of character. So, I’m just asking the Councilmen - - - I know like I say, we have a fine Chief, and they are going to do - - - I sent a complaint in about four or five pages about my complaint and I know that they said that they’re going to do an investigation, but to be honest, I have little faith in Internal Affairs. So, I just want to make sure that the Council is aware. Because what you saw in the media is what they edited out. That’s what they do, edit out what they want you to see. But my thing was I didn’t do anything, neither did my husband do anything to merit that type of punishment. I felt abused. I’ve never been so humiliated in front of my kids, my family. It traumatized my kids, they couldn’t go to school yesterday, they didn’t want to go to school today, and I have honor roll kids at all schools. And I’m afraid that this is going to devastate them. And it could affect them, because it’s affecting me. In 44 years, I’ve never been humiliated. He didn’t give me a ticket, he didn’t arrest me. He gave me a summons for disturbing the peace to go to court. He gave my husband one command to disperse. And Internal Affairs couldn’t explain to me what command to disperse means. And I’m just trying to see - - - I mean what am I supposed to do? I’ve got - - - he took us to the car, he pushed us all the way out. Everybody that knows me, people are going to form the opinion that what did Patricia and Mack do? Because I know, it’s a fact that we live upstanding citizens in our community. Neither one of us have a record, never been arrested, never kicked out of school. None of my sisters and brothers, no one in my family has been in trouble with the law. And to be humiliated? He not only humiliated me and my husband and my kids, he humiliated my whole entire family, and I feel he traumatized us. Thank you.

Pastor Lemar Holden: (3837 Merwin) 30 days ago, I was here along with the Coalition members who are seated behind me, and we requested a copy of the general contractors Walton, and whoever else is on the Convention Center, and Hotel, along with their subcontracts. Sitting here this afternoon, I’ve listened to Mr. Jackson as he requested certain things, and then I learned from Mr. Lafitte that it was nothing in the law to make Mr. Walton give the subcontracts. Because something was in the law that he did not give them. Then I heard Mr. Gilliam come up and say he had met all the contractors, and subcontractors face-to-face. Since that’s the case, I want to know from Mr. Gilliam and this Council, if it’s against the law for Mr. Walton to give the subcontracts, is it against the law for Mr. Gilliam to go out to those same people that he met face-to-face and ask them for that contract that they have with Mr. Walton. And then the next thing that we would like to know, all the legit contractors, whether they’re legit. Not whether they can perform the work or not, because in the State of Louisiana, in order to perform over $50,000 worth of work, you’ve got to be a general contractor, licensed. Some of those names that were mentioned this afternoon, is not listed with the State of Louisiana. Of course when you get to the State of Louisiana, you come out of the contractors (inaudible) that you’re a licensed contractor. If you don’t make it in the first of the year, they sent out memos about every 90 days or six months listing you. Some of those names are not listed, unless they’re operating under another name. So, I would like for this Council to look into that, and you know later date, we’ll be back, probably the next Council Meeting, and request for Mr. Gilliam, since he’s has some personal contacts with those whom he went out. I don’t think that would be a conflict of the law with Mr. Walton, if he go back to those folk, I don’t think - - - I think if they’re legit, I don’t think they should have no problem giving him a copy of their contract with Mr. Walton. Now, since I’ve said that, let me deal with my daughter. First of all, let me introduce my wife. She’s an amputee and she’s in a wheelchair. It’s my wife for 48 years, this past August. Four boys and three girls that we’ve reared in this city. And let me ask Mr. Campbell. He don’t know me as well as I know him. I did a background check on him when we had this controversy to see what kind of Chief was going to replace our former chief. And our attorney for the Coalition is Attorney S. P. Davis, who is the President of our Coalition for Justice, and he gave him high marks. And that was good enough for me, because I have a lot of respect for our attorney. And now addressing what happened Sunday evening. They called me as I was on my way from visiting a second church, and my daughter, Tracy called me and said daddy get to the Fairgrounds. They’ve got Pat out here arrested. My world turned upside down because of the fact that we - - - I’m from the old school, we believe living next door to you, leave your house open. You don’t have to worry about not one of my kids going in there. That’s the way I came up, and I instilled that in my children. Never to go out and break the law. So, when I approach, my daughter said, daddy, they did her wrong, and I said that’s not good law. Another officer came up and said, don’t you come here with that. I said sir, I’m not the one for you to even do that with. I’ve come to see about my daughter, and I continued to go on down. And I asked him if he would talk to his Chief, or whoever was in charge, and release my daughter and son-in-law over to me. And I thank him for doing that. But my thing is this to the City Council. No one here on this Council, Mayor or nobody would want a policeman to take his daughter and slam her head against that wall and remain on the force. He has no business. We was over at Internal Affairs, and they assured us that this was a separate entity now, thanks to Mr. Campbell, he said we find this guy guilty - - - we’re going to dismiss him. First of all there is no sign out there at the Fairground that says no smoking. Policemen are not to make laws, they are to uphold me. Y’all correct me, (inaudible) I’m not an attorney. But there should be signs out there where you - - - no smoking versus where you supposed to smoke. But the smoking is not the issue. The issue that he violated her civil rights, because she should be able to talk to him and about him as long as she has not violated no laws, and he should not have handled her like that. And rammed her head, when he rammed her head, he rammed my head, my wife. My wife didn’t even want to go to dialysis. She goes to dialysis three times a week. She did not want to go. She was hurt, she cried. I held her in my arms all night, cause we have nurtured our children, that’s our family. That’s all we got, and we’ve taught them how respect the law. And the very law that we taught them to respect committed a crime. And this man is walking on the street with a badge on today. And Mayor, you’re the Chief, that’s your boy. You’re his boss. That man has no business on the street. Until this investigation, you all take the initiative to pull him off the street. Anyone - - - use that kind of language out there in the public. I Pastor a church. A lot of my members out there saw my daughter on the ground. I was so humiliated when I come in. I felt less than a man. I’m 69 years old, and you can check my record. My record is clean. I’ve instilled it into my children. Lets live above reproach. Now, with God, all of us have sinned. But in the (inaudible) world, you can check my record from Spokane, Washington here, you will not find anything. And I’m asking this Council. Make the right decision. Pull that officer off. He has no business. I don’t tell you not to fire him until we go through this process because there will be a process to move him. He not only needs to be moved, he needs to go to prison, because he’s the one who committed a crime. My daughter didn’t commit no crime. He’s the one that committed the crime. And I’ve put it in the paper, a thug is a thug, I don’t care if he does wear a badge. Lets clean it up. We’re getting ready November 27^th, going to have a new Mayor, regardless to who it be. I don’t have nothing against Mr. Jones, nor Mr. Cedric. I’m going to meet with them. Before you talk about this crime, they’re running on it, that’s good. The worse crime in the world is to have it done by the police. And not the Police Department not bad. I was raised up in Natchitoches Parish, when we gather up potatoes, daddy said take the bad potato out and wash the rest of them. You need to pull that bad one out and wash the rest of them that we’re not going to tolerate this. We’re upstanding citizens and we’ve been humiliated. We’ve been (inaudible) mentally destroyed. And I thank this Council for listening and if I sound a little harsh, cause I would not - - - if my son was on the Police, and hitting on your daughter like that, if he wouldn’t come and apologize to you, I’d disown him as my son.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think the Chief is here. If it’s appropriate, I’d like to ask him just one question? Thank you Chief. What’s the status of this situation?

Chief Campbell: The complaint was filed yesterday, we have a complaint affidavit. The case is under investigation, as I explained yesterday, Councilman Lester, our system is based on a system of due process, and we’re investigating the facts, gathering witnesses, in reference to the incident, and we’ll do what the facts of the investigation dictate.

Councilman Jackson: And I’m assuming that’s the extent to which you’ve made comments on.

Chief Campbell: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: I know that we’ve been through so many Internal Affairs investigations regarding complaints against the officers, but the timeframe to hopefully have some sort of response back, and again I know you can’t - - -

Chief Campbell: Civil Service law requires us to have it completed in 60 days.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, so I just want to make sure we had that on the record.

Chief Campbell: We can do them faster, it depends on the number of witnesses that we interview, and how complex the issue is. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Rev. Holden and his daughter for their confidence in me in their comments that they made. And I would like to assure them that it will be investigated to the fullest. If there is one lesson that I’ve learned in my 33 years in this job is that there is always two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And that’s the reason we have an investigation. And we want to afford everybody his due process, and based on the facts and the findings of that investigation, the appropriate action will be taken.

Councilman Hogan: Chief Campbell, one more comment I have. As the author of the smoking ban, I remember after it passed, we put out signs at the appropriate places, city parks and Independence Bowl was included in that. And if you would, look into that and see, based on what they’ve told us, there are no signs. This isn’t actually the issue, there does need to be those No Smoking signs out there.

Chief Campbell: Absolutely. And the investigation will cover all aspects to include that and there are some exemptions for the Independence Stadium as well as Festival Plaza that were put in there, and we’ll look at all aspects that will be considered in regards to the investigation.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

RESOLUTIONS ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE OR WHICH REQUIRE ONLY ONE READING

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 151 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF SHREVEPORT POLICE HANDHELD MOTOROLA RADIOS AND A LAPTOP TO THE BUREUA OF ACHOHOL AND TOBACO, AND FIREARMS (Shreveport Field Office) PROVIDING RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, The City of Shreveport Police Department desires to donate 2 mobile Radios and one laptop computer to the State of Louisiana’s Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Department (Shreveport’s Field Office)

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 315 of 1979, requires City Council approval of an agreement made and entered into by the City of Shreveport and any person or entity, where under such person or entity receives a donation in return for service which serves a public purpose; and,

WHEREAS, the Louisiana’s Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms Office has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, this donation, under these circumstances, provides for the most cost effective way to dispose of the handheld radios.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this Resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Resolution, which can be given, affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 152 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION OF SHREVEPORT POLICE HANDHELD MOTOROLA RADIOS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROPATION AND PATROL, SHREVEPORT DISTRICT OFFICE PROVIDING RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, The City of Shreveport Police Department desires to donate one mobile Radio, and one Dell Inspirion 5100 Laptop computer

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 315 of 1979, requires City Council approval of an agreement made and entered into by the City of Shreveport and any person or entity, where under such person or entity receives a donation in return for service which serves a public purpose; and,

WHEREAS, the Louisiana’s Department of Probation and Patrol Shreveport District Office has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, the Motorola handheld radio and the Laptop described herein were acquired in conjunction with a now expired federal grant (Project Safe Neighborhoods) and are being distributed in accordance with grant guidelines to a named governmental partner, the Louisiana Department of Probation and Parole.

WHEREAS, this donation, under these circumstances, provides for the most cost effective way to dispose of the handheld radio and laptop computer.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this Resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Resolution, which can be given, affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 153 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE GRANT DOCUMENTS WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) PREPAREDNESS DIRECTORATE’S OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TRAINING (G&T), AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Preparedness Directorate’s Office of Grants and Training (G&T) has invited the City of Shreveport Police Department to file an application for selected equipment under the “Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program” and

WHEREAS, the award, if approved will be for a Thermal Imager and requires no cash match by the City of Shreveport and

WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has made the application to receive an award as part of the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program to obtain equipment that the Shreveport Police Department could not otherwise afford.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened, that it does hereby authorize the execution by Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, those grant documents necessary to receive the above equipment established within the program administered by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Preparedness Directorate’s Office of Grants and Training (G&T)

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this Resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Resolution which can be given affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

4. Resolution No. 154 of 2006: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a sludge processing/ marketing contract between the City and C. E. Delaney and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Lester to postpone.

Councilman Carmody: There’s some information that I’d like to get from the Administration before we move on, on this. And I’m sure we’ll have it by the next meeting, and we can be prepared to move forward.

Councilman Hogan: Are you going to communicate that now or later?

Councilman Carmody: I’ll do it later.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 155 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE 2007 CONSOLIDATED COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (ANNUAL ACTION PLAN) TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 171 of 2003 authorized the submission of a 2004-2008 Consolidated Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City of Shreveport is required to submit an annual update to the Consolidated Plan.

WHEREAS, this update serves as the planning document for the City’s Department of Community Development and as an application for funding under the Community Planning Development formula grant programs; Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESG).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to submit a 2007 Consolidated Community Planning and Development Update (Annual Action Plan) to HUD substantially in accordance with the attached draft which is filed for public inspection with the original of this resolution in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and submit any and all documents necessary for the submission of the 2007 Consolidated Community Planning and Development Update (Annual Action Plan).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Councilman Hogan: Before you go Mr. Thompson, I know you had requested at our last meeting that we try to go a little bit slower. Are we on target?

Ms. Johnson: You’re doing great.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, just wanted to be sure. Just thinking about you over there. Thank you. Mr. Thompson? Carry on.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 156 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND SOUTH SHREVEPORT DEVELOPMENT CO., L.L.C., REPRESENTED BY STEVE SIMON, FOR THE WATER AND SEWER MAINS LOCATED IN PIERREMONT PLACE UNIT #8 AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with South Shreveport Development Co., L.L.C. represented by Steve Simon substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Jackson. 1.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 157 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND PROVENANCE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C. BY PROVENANCE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., ITS MANAGER, FOR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPED IN PROVENANCE DEVELOPMENT – PHASE I UNIT A AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY:

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with Provenance Operating Company, L.L.C. by Provenance Operating Company, L.L.C. substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt.

Councilman Lester: This wasn’t the issue that was up for litigation?

Councilwoman Robertson: No.

Councilman Lester: Okay, that answers my question.

Councilwoman Robertson: That’s the next one, that I’m fixin’ to postpone.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson. 4. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilmen Hogan, and Jackson. 2.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 158 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND N.F. ROAD COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ROBERT M. AIELLO, MANAGER, FOR WATER AND SEWER MAINS SERVING NORRIS FERRY LANDING SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 5, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with N.F. Road Company, represented by Robert M. Aiello, Manager, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 159 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND AOK, L.L.C., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ROBERT AIELLO, MANAGING MEMBER, FOR THE WATER MAINS, SEWER MAINS, LIFT STATION AND ALL RELATED APPURTENANCES SERVING LAKESIDE AT LONG LAKE, UNIT NO. 3 AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with AOK, L.L.C., herein represented by Robert M. Aiello, Managing Member, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 160 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND AOK, L.L.C., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ROBERT M. AIELLO, MANAGING MEMBER, FOR WATER MAINS, SEWER MAINS AND ALL APPURTENANCES SERVING LAKESIDE AT LONG LAKE, UNIT NO. 4, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with AOK, L.L.C, represented by Robert M. Aiello, Managing Member, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

11. Resolution No. 161 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a donation agreement between the City of Shreveport and Brunswick Place, L.L.C., represented by Jon E. Saye, Manager for water and sewer mains serving Brunswick Place Subdivision, units 11, 12, and 13, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Robertson)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 162 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND BELLE CHERRI LAND COMPANY, INC., REPRESENTED BY THOMAS L. ARNOLD, FOR THE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MAINS AND RELATED FACILITIES LOCATED IN SHREVE HILLS NORTH REPLAT, PHASE ONE AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a Donation Agreement with Belle Cherri Land Company, Inc., represented by Thomas L. Arnold substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the draft of said agreement which was filed for public inspection with the original draft of the resolution in the office of the City Council on October 24, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 163 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ACCEPT A 15’ SANITARY SEWER SERVITUDE LOCATED IN LOT 2 OF THE CUSH’S CORNER SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 8, T16N, R13W, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY: Councilman Robertson

WHEREAS, the owners of Lot 2, Cush’s Corner Subdivision, have agreed to dedicate, at no cost to the City of Shreveport, a servitude, to allow installation of plant necessary to provide sanitary sewer service to areas previously unserved by this utility. The purpose of the line is to provide a sanitary sewer service necessary for further development of this area, as well as convenience to the citizens in the area; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to accept this 15’ sanitary sewer servitude located in Lot 2 of Cush’s Corner Subdivision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to accept the 15’ sanitary sewer servitude located in Lot 2 of Cush’s Corner Subdivision in Section 8, T16N, R13W (see plat attached hereto).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized and empowered to execute any and all documents associated with the acceptance of the 15’ sanitary sewer servitude located in Lot 2 of Cush’s Corner Subdivision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 164 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR FERN LOOP IN FERN LOOP RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING

WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal,

and regular session convened, that the dedication for Fern Loop in Section 19, (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Fern Loop be recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Robertson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 165 of 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HUGH CALVIN ILGENFRITZ, JR. & GLENDA GORMAN ILGENFRITZ, LOCATED AT 6247 N. LAKESHORE DR., TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Hugh Calvin Ilgenfritz, Jr. & Glenda Gorman Ilgenfritz have agreed to secure all permits and inspections required by the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code. Said party having submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Shreveport, and having agreed to fully comply with the regulations of the City of Shreveport in connection with said property, all as set forth in Section 94-1, et. Seq., of the Shreveport City Code. Said request and petition are attached hereto.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Hugh Calvin Ilgenfritz, Jr. & Glenda Gorman Ilgenfritz, be authorized to connect the building located at 6247 N. Lakeshore Dr., to the sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution or the application thereof are held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

Councilman Lester. Mr. Strong, just real briefly. I thought that we had done this before.

Councilwoman Robertson: I did too.

Mr. Strong: We approved the easement or the right for him to do that. What this has done now, he has got his plans and he is doing it, but before he can do it, he had to ask for approval. In other words this gave us the opportunity to make sure if it’s going to be done correctly.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 166 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY’S INTEREST IN CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES AS SURPLUS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, there are numerous parcels of property which have been adjudicated to the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish for non-payment of ad valorem taxes; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Caddo Parish under which Caddo Parish will undertake to sell or donate said properties as authorized in R.S. 33:4720.11 or R.S. 33:4720.25; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26-294 of the Code of Ordinances, the city’s interests in said properties can be sold after the City Council declares them to be surplus; and

WHEREAS, the purchasing agent has inquired of all city departments regarding the property described herein and has not received any indication that it is needed for city purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the following described properties are hereby declared surplus:

Lot 7, John H. Fetzer Subdivision & ½ abandoned Alley Geographic Number 171403-018-000700

Municipal Address: 3136 Lakeshore Drive

Council District “G”

Lot 287, Belmount Grove Addition Geographic Number 171424-041-028700

Municipal Address: 534 East 70^th Street

Council District “C”

The East Half (E/2 of Lot 119) and the West Geographic Number 171424-048-016400

Thirty (30) feet of Lot 120 Municipal Park Subdivision

Municipal Address: 215 West 69^th Street

Council District “F”

Lot 1299, Cedar Grove Subdivision Geographic Number 171425-094-129900

Municipal Address: 285 East 70^th Street

Council District “C”

Lot 23, Mooretown G. D. Subdivision Geographic Number 171416-065-002300

And ½ adj. abandoned alley

Municipal Address: 4922 Carl Terrace

Council District “F”

Lot 24, Mooretown G. D. Subdivision Geographic Number 171416-065-002400

And ½ adj. abandoned alley

Municipal Address: 4918 Carl Terrace

Council District “F”

Lots 33, 34 and the North 12 feet (N12’) Geographic Number 171305-077-006300

of Lot 32, Freewater Subdivision

Municipal Address: 2015 Freewater Street

Council District “B”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications, and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 168 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A BANKING SERVICES AGREEMENT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Director of Finance be and she is hereby authorized and instructed to advertise a request for proposals for a banking services agreement for the City of Shreveport, covering the deposit of funds derived from taxes and other revenues for a two year term beginning January 1, 2007, with an option to renew for an additional two year period.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the successful proposer shall be required to bind and obligate itself to comply with all requirements provided by law and to meet the City’s request for services described in the attached request for proposal for the term agreed on. The deposit of all City funds made pursuant to this agreement shall be protected and secured as provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that proposals shall be returnable no later than 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 28, 2006 to the Director of Finance in Suite 670, Government Plaza (505 Travis St., Shreveport, Louisiana.) At 3:00 p.m., said proposals will be publicly opened and announced in the City Council meeting in the Government Plaza Chamber located on the first floor of Government Plaza. This resolution shall be promulgated according to law, and banks having local offices shall be notified of the request for proposals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that after the proposals are opened and in the case that all are deemed unsatisfactory, the Director is hereby authorized to negotiate a satisfactory banking services agreement with any qualified financial institution. The City of Shreveport reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informalities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Lester: My question to Ms. Washington. In this, is there a Fair Share component that’s contemplated with this banking service agreement?

Ms. Washington: Banking is something that’s exempt because when you do the banking services, it’s a bank, and they have you know the different departments, and they don’t normally (inaudible) of that information to some other entity.

Councilman Lester: So by our statute, banking service agreements are exempt, or is that just a standard in practice?

Ms. Washington: If I’m not mistaken, it’s exempt according to the statutes.

Councilman Lester: Okay. Well that answers my question.

Ms. Washington: I will make sure of that.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know. A lot of it, I think I understand what Ms. Washington is saying, but a lot of it has to do with a lot of other factors. I don’t know who put together the RFP, but without necessarily having that component, there are, I think, other ways to suggest that the spirit of what the City is supposed to be about will also be obvious in what a bank is supposed to be about. I think from an RFP perspective, it is a proposal that there could be some questions asked with regard to what has been the HMDA I think it is report that they file on a regular basis, that suggest that they do not redline. That they have annually - - - that they have to file, I think by acronym is a (inaudible) report, or something like that. Also they have a CRA requirement. I think the federal government, or the federal reserve whoever the case may be, I guess my question is whether or not there is language that can be incorporated into the RFP to suggest that while it may not be there in the letter of it, it could certainly be there in the spirit of how they’ve done business historically.

Ms. Washington: I’ll get those acronyms and make sure (inaudible) are a part of that.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, and I guess my next question would be Ms. Washington, I’ve looked at it, and I’ve looked at the attachment. And certainly I want to give respect to the timeline. And the timeline would certainly be violated waiting for the next meeting, because there is a November 6^th meeting that you kinda have the meeting of the proposals of the requestors, if you will, and so I guess my question is how much would postponing that damage what is - - -?

Ms. Washington: Well that’s the time to ask those questions because the conference is to get questions answered and that sort of thing. So that would be the time to raise those questions about something else that could be done.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, so is - - - I guess my question is then would we have as a time table of critical dates, I’m assuming to modify critical means just what it says, that in order to meet a timeframe of January 1, 1201 a.m., this is the timeframe you’d have to operate on.

Ms. Washington: Yes sir.

Councilman Jackson: And this meets all the dates. It’s air tight with dates, I mean you don’t have any flexibility with regards to the dates?

Ms. Washington: Well, I’m sure that the bank that we currently have, if they do not get the work, they will continue to work with us until we do select someone else. But we’d like to get it done.

Councilman Jackson: Sure, and that’s why I’m asking these questions. And I don’t know, I don’t want to be serially focused on this, I just I think there are some things from a construction of an RFP, there can be in fact known. But regardless to that, to be sure that while we can do one thing, we certainly can exhibit the spirit of what our values are in the city to our RFP and make sure that we’re in business with people who have as close to those values as possible. That being the case Mr. Chairman, I wanted to - - - I guess maybe find the pleasure of the Council with regards to postponing it, and being able to do that.

Councilman Hogan: Are you making a motion, a substitute to postpone?

Councilman Jackson: Well, I just wanted to see if we could gain any level of consensus or know in fact where we’re going with this.

Councilman Lester: My question Ms. Washington is this. If we don’t postpone this and authorize you to advertise for Request For Proposals, and I see that you have a very specific and stringent deadline in terms of the things that you want to do and the times. If we decide of if the Council comes forth with a resolution asking for the RFP to be amended to include issues relating to Fair Share, would that be something that would allow you to continue your process in terms of meeting with the people and having the “pre-bid conference” and what have you and allow us to supplement the RFP?

Ms. Washington: Well Julie can correct me, but because it is a request for quotes on services, I think that at any time, we can talk about what else we might want to put in the actual contract. Because this isn’t the contract, it’s just these are the things that we desire. You tell us whether or not you can do these things. Maybe there are some other things that you can do for us. So, in the final contract, is where we make sure that every thing that you want is there. Is that not correct Julie?

Ms. Glass: That’s correct. It’s the - - - the deal is subject to approval by the Council of the final contract. I guess the only other question would be whether it is more productive to make sure that what you want is in the RFP.

Councilman Lester: And that’s where I was coming from.

Ms. Glass: So that we don’t you know - - - or, are dealing with something that the people when they made the proposal were not aware of.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Ms. Glass: But then again, you have to balance that against the timeframe problem.

Ms. Washington: And I do think the kinds of questions you have, are those are the kinds of things that we ask. What’s in that request for quotes are mainly the kinds of services that we’d like to have. They’re aren’t things about Fair Share and that sort of things. These are the kinds of things we’d like to maintain our bank account.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Ms. Washington: Give us this kind of service, and that kind of service.

Councilman Lester: Right. And I guess where I’m coming from and not to put words in Councilman Jackson’s mouth, but I think we’re on the same page. My concern is that as we move forward, we want to branch out in Fair Share and do business with people who share our philosophy of inclusiveness. And so, the time to ask those questions about your history of inclusiveness is prior to the RFP or including that in the RFP if in fact, those are some things that we can deal with legitimately.

Ms. Washington: I think that I can ask those questions now. And I’ll ask everyone who we asked to quote on it. This is additional information that we’d like to have.

Councilman Carmody: Just wanted to make sure that I understood Ms. Washington correctly. That there is an opportunity for the discussion with those persons who come forward with proposals to bring these issues forward and - - -

Ms. Washington: I can put those issues forward to them and say these are additional things that we have, that we’d like for you to address.

Councilman Robertson: There are RFPs that are put out all the time and addendums are done to them. Can we not just put an addendum to it?

Ms. Glass: Well Mr. Chairman, the RFPs have not been advertised yet. So we don’t really have to do an addendum. I guess my uncertainty was exactly what the Council wanted in there, but if you’re willing to leave that to Ms. Washington and our office to find some language to cover those possibilities, I think could be added to the RFP before it’s advertised.

Councilwoman Robertson: Well my thought was just that (inaudible) timeframe, you know trying to get it done, that if we postponed it till the 14^th, that blows her November 6^th meeting with perspective people.

Councilman Jackson: And that was the reason for my line of questions. I wanted you to express in the beginning. I didn’t want to artificially delay it any longer than necessary because I wanted it to be subject to the timeline that you had presented. But I guess what I would suggest then as Ms. Glass has said, I mean what I’m willing to do is the couple of thoughts and ideas about what I think can be included or incorporated in that request is submit them tomorrow.

Ms. Washington: It’s on word processing. It doesn’t take much to add.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, and submit that to you all tomorrow. I don’t know if any other Councilman have anything, but I would be glad to submit those things with regards to redlining the language as it relates to redlining, and Community Reinvestment Act and those kinds of things. I’ll be glad to submit that as my contribution. I guess my concern is as we pass this, I just want to have a level of confidence that if we submit these things, that we have some sense of knowing it’s incorporated into the documents that we’re going to be talking to them about, and maybe you could just forward a copy as verification of that.

Ms. Washington: Be glad to do it.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTI0N NO. 169 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO DISPOSE BY PUBLIC AUCTION OF CERTAIN SUPPLIES, MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND VEHICLES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent, after consultation with various department heads, has determined that certain supplies, materials, equipment, and vehicles as shown in Exhibits A & B (attached) hereto are surplus, obsolete, or unusable for present and future City needs; and

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 108 of 1980 authorizes the Purchasing Agent to dispose of certain supplies, materials, equipment, and vehicles determined to be surplus;

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain responsibility for the disposition of all surplus supplies, materials, equipment and vehicles having an acquisition value of $10,000.00 or more; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to dispose of, by public auction, the supplies, materials, equipment, and vehicles described in Exhibits A & B attached hereto and made a part hereof, which have been determined to be surplus, obsolete or unusable for present and future City needs; and

WHEREAS, the City Council concurs in the finding that the supplies, materials, equipment and vehicles described in Exhibits A & B are surplus and no longer needed for public purposes and that the acquisition value of said properties are greater then $10,000.

NOW BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to dispose of, by public auction, the surplus supplies, materials, equipment and vehicles instruments described in Exhibits A & B attached.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 170 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 218 OF 2005 WHICH APPROPIATED FUNDS TO SPECIFIC NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FROM FUNDS BUDGETED IN “OTHER CHARGES” THE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: CINDY N. ROBERTSON

WHEREAS, Resolution 218 or 2005 was approved by the City Council on December 13, 2005; and

WHEREAS, said resolution allocated Riverfront Development Special Revenue Funds to not-for-profit organizations; and

WHEREAS, in said resolution $30,000 was allocated to the Shreveport Regional Sports Authority to renovate Lee Hedges Stadium to have College Track Meets and $50,000 was budgeted in contingencies; and

WHEREAS, the Shreveport Regional Sports Authority was unable to contract with College Track Teams, therefore, the $30,000 is no longer needed to renovate Lee Hedges Stadium; and

WHEREAS, Shreveport Regional Arts Council has had on exhibit the "Many Faces of Katrina" which will close on October 21, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the "Many Faces of Katrina" exhibit will be touring nationally and additional funds of $50,000 are needed to nationally advertise the exhibit; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Resolution 218 of 2005 be amended to reduce the allocated amount of $30,000 appropriated on behalf of Shreveport Regional Sports Authority, for renovation of Lee Hedges Stadium and reduce contingencies by $20,000, and to allocate said $50,000 to the Shreveport Regional Arts Council for advertising its "Many Faces of Katrina" exhibition to national audiences.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or application, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt.

Councilwoman Robertson: Pam Atchison is here. If we have questions. We’re passing out some information. There was an art exhibit that was done. It was called Faces of Katrina. It was well respected by many entities in the city. I believe they had 5,000 people that came through. There were Shreveport residents, photographers that participated in it. The Shreveport Regional Arts Council during the Hurricane Katrina when the evacuees were here in the different shelters, they provided art and art supplies, music and brought things out to the different shelters, all in part of this Faces of Katrina. The exhibit closed last Saturday and they have an opportunity to be picked up by a Southern Regional Arts Group, I believe that’s the name of it, that can tour it. And so there were some funds that were available in Riverfront Development, and I would like to ask my fellow council representatives to join with me in giving these funds to the Shreveport Regional Arts Council to help defray costs that they’ve already spent, and those that will be spent. They’ve had to crate this exhibit up, and to make it in preparations for that, so I’m recommending (inaudible). And they did some pamphlets that were passed out showing some of the things that they did, and they had school groups that came. They made second line umbrellas, they were able to view films showing New Orleans and what all took place, and some of the musicians that were in the area during Katrina, and hear the music, and see some of the things that took place with it. It was a very great exhibition.

Councilman Jackson: I didn’t understand - - - maybe Councilman Robertson can explain this again. You said they gave $20,000 or $30,000 whatever the number is. I guess it’s $30,000?

Councilwoman Robertson: I submitted for $50,000. There was $30,000 that was in the Riverfront that was not expended on another nonprofit.

Councilman Jackson: Right. $30,000 and then $20,000 out of what is called contingencies?

Councilwoman Robertson: Right.

Councilman Jackson: So, this $50,000, let me ask this question again. Where it’s saying it’s $50,000 to send it on tour?

Councilwoman Robertson: It’s not to send it on tour. It’s to help them with the cost involved. They themselves, SRAC, is not going to be the one that’s touring it. They have had expenses with this exhibition of Faces of Katrina, like I mentioned, that they did have personnel, supplies and all that went to the shelters whenever the Hurricane evacuees were here that helped the evacuees, the children and some of the other people to go forward in their healing process, or whatever. And then they had several artists from the Shreveport area, well known artists that took pictures and tried to tell a story of the people that were displaced. This exhibit has a chance to be, and Pam is it Southern Regional Arts - - -?

Ms. Atchison: (Inaudible)

Councilwoman Robertson: Federation is talking with Shreveport Regional Arts Council here to take that exhibit and tour it. And so for that they’d have to crate it up, which they’ve already purchased the crates, and because it closed on Saturday. So this money would help defray some of the costs for them preparing it and getting it sent off, and the publicity for it, because it will be showcasing North Louisiana and Shreveport for the artists and the photographers that were participating in it and also some of the expenses that they had with the Katrina refugees that were at our shelters here in Shreveport. And I believe that there is some information in the packet that was given, and they did in their budget for 2007, they showed some of the expenses that were there.

Councilman Jackson: Well, I guess maybe I understand a little bit better, I noticed these are the faces of the evacuees from New Orleans - - -

Councilwoman Robertson: And some of them are residents here.

Councilman Jackson: We’re talking about $50,000 that helps them prepare to send it on tour.

Councilwoman Robertson: The publicity for it?

Councilman Jackson: That’s going to be spent. I guess - - - here’s my question. The publicity that they’re going to utilize is going to be spent where? So they’re going to buy in other media markets to say come and see it?

Councilwoman Robertson: Right. It won’t be here. We’ve already had the exhibit here. So it will be expended in other markets. It’ll be showcasing that it’s coming from Shreveport for North Louisiana, and what efforts that our city did to help the Katrina evacuees. Our artists, our photographers, and then also there was money expended by Shreveport Regional Arts Council for the art work and all that they did at the shelters.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. I had an opportunity to speak with Councilwoman Robertson about this, and I’m going to be supporting this. I think it’s a worthwhile scenario. I want Ms. Atchison to tell Mr. Kallenberg - - - that Councilman Lester said, Councilman-elect said, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words and threats from old men will never hurt me.”

Councilman Walford: Let me just add very briefly to what Councilman Robertson just said. As I read the incoming expense report, the Faces of Katrina here brought in $161,500. But the expenses ran $223,000. So, this will also be helping SRAC recoup some of what they spent on the exhibition. And I will be supporting it.

Councilwoman Robertson: And I will say that Ms. Atchison is in the audience today. She had no idea that this was on the agenda, until I made calls to her yesterday. So, this is not something that SRAC came to this Council and asked for, I several weeks ago had asked about some additional funds that may be in Riverfront Development, and that’s how this came about.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I heard what Councilman Lester said as well, and I have never changed about how I felt about the Regional Arts Council, and I want them to know, Pam is here today I believe, and notwithstanding budget issues and all those things that it may not be popular, but my vote will reflect the way I feel about the efforts of this Arts Council. So, for whatever that message that sends, I just want to be clear about the fact that I’m saying that to you. So I hope nobody takes it personally, but I hope you’ll see that my vote will reflect what I think the Art Council’s value is to Shreveport.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (Not to be adopted prior to Nov14, 2006):

1. Resolution No. 167 of 2006: Authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Southern Hills Business Association and the Parish of Caddo and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (E/Hogan)

2. Resolution No. 171 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute amendment Number 2 to the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the Friends of the Municipal Auditorium, Inc. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 172 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the renewal of an agreement between the City of Shreveport and KPMG, LLP for an External Audit of the City of Shreveport for Fiscal Year January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, authorizing the Mayor to execute an engagement letter evidencing said renewal, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Resolution No. 173 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement for the financing of vehicles and equipment and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to introduce Resolution No(s). 167, 171, 172, and 173 of 2006 to lay over until November 14, 2006 meeting.

Councilman Hogan: Briefly, I’d like to mention No. 167. Council Members, you’ll recall a few weeks ago, weeks are turning into months now, about the Southern Hills Business Association and the agreement we passed. Julie helped me with that and we fashioned this lease agreement for the old library. And the business association came back with some alterations, and it’s going to require us to vote on it again. So that’s - - -

Councilman Jackson: How much was that Mr. Chairman?

Councilman Hogan: This was a lease agreement for them to use the library. No money.

Councilman Jackson: Oh, we haven’t given them any money, just the building?

Councilman Hogan: This is the agreement. We did vote a separate issue about the matching funds. And that issue is - - -

Councilman Jackson: I mean, but we did that already didn’t we?

Councilman Hogan: We did that already, this is on the lease agreement.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (Not to be adopted prior to Nov14, 2006)

1. Ordinance No. 182 of 2006: An ordinance creating and establishing the intersection of Flournoy Lucas Road and Wallace Lake Road as a four-way stop intersection and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Robertson)

2. Ordinance No. 183 of 2006: An ordinance amending and replacing Ordinance No. 58 of 1972, yield intersections, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 184 of 2006: An ordinance amending and replacing Ordinance No. 63 of 1976 creating twelve (12) stop intersections within the city limits of the City of Shreveport and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4.. Ordinance No. 185 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Budget for the Convention Center Hotel Enterprise Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 186 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 187 of 2006: ZONING – C-63-06: An ordinance amending Section 1 of Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

7. Ordinance No. 188 of 2006: ZONING – C-65-06: An ordinance amending Section 638 of Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

8. Ordinance No. 189 of 2006: ZONING - C-83-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the SE corner of Mount Zion road and Linwood Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence-Agriculture District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

9. Ordinance No. 190 of 2006: ZONING - C-84-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the north side of Industrial Loop, 1225 feet east of Kingston Road Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, “Limited to storage, mini-warehouses, residences, outside storage of R.V.’s and boats, only, to B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, “Limited to truck rental, storage, mini-warehouses, residence, outside storage of RV’s and boats,” only,   and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody , seconded by Councilman Lester to introduce Ordinance No(s). 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, and 190 of 2006 to lay over until November 14, 2006 meeting.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Clerk would it be appropriate for us to bring amendments to the next meeting?

Mr. Thompson: Sure.

Councilman Jackson: Well, I mean between now and the next meeting?

Mr. Thompson: Yes sir.

Councilman Hogan: Just try to have it to him before 3:00 that Tuesday.

Councilman Jackson: I will, I’ll have it to him by 3:00 that Monday.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE (Numbers are assigned Ordinance Numbers)

1. Ordinance No. 119 of 2006: An ordinance amending the Section 10-1 and 10-102 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Postponed September 26, 2006)

Having passed first reading on August 22, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to withdraw Ordinance No. 119 of 2006.

Councilman Walford: In the way of borrowing from my friend Councilman Lester, and change it slightly. He says that bad facts make bad law. And I think on this one bad law makes bad results, and we don’t need to go there. I understand the Police Department will come forward with new suggestions. I think we’re best served by removing this.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

2. Ordinance No. 122 of 2006: An Ordinance to amend portions of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to traffic and vehicles and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Postponed September 26, 2006)

Having passed first reading on August 22, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to table.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Lester, could you give us a brief explanation on that?

Councilman Lester: Yes, thank you. I need to get some additional information relative to the whole idea of the placing of the cameras, and the traffic vehicles. The information that I’ve gotten received thus far from the State of Louisiana is they’re going to object to any such cameras being placed on any state highways. And in fact as we started this process, I indicated to you that Shreveport is a little bit behind New Orleans and Baton Rouge, and several places in Jefferson Parish that have already passed ordinances like this, have gotten RFPs and those types of things. Baton Rouge a little bit further ahead of us in the process. They haven’t selected an operator, but they have moved forward. The state has made it pretty clear, they will not be supportive of placing any such devices in any state highway. And as you know, if you look at the roads around Shreveport, those areas that are the most heavily traffic, and are the most problematic are the state highways. So, I don’t know that as a practical matter, that it’s something that we need to pursue, but to the extent that I get some additional information in terms of what’s going on in Baton Rouge, how that’s going to affect us. I just as soon ask that we put it on the table as opposed to have to continuing to postponing, postponing, postponing, postponing.

Councilman Hogan: That’s fine, I won’t be opposed to that. Do you know off the top of your head if Baton Rouge or New Orleans, you said they’ve already voted ordinances in like this, so do they have the cameras operating on city streets right now?

Councilman Lester: Huh hmm. What - - - it’s a two step process. That’s a good question. The first step was to pass the ordinance making it a civil penalty, not a criminal penalty. After you deal with that, then they go out to the RFPs to request the person who is actually going to operate the cameras. New Orleans, has not done it, Jefferson Parish has, Baton Rouge has both done what we’re trying to do with 122. They have got out to RFP. In the process of going out for RFP and before they got responses, they got information from the state that says we’re not going to be supportive of you placing any of those cameras on any state highways. So they are ahead of us in the process, and they’re pretty much deciding what they’re going to do. So, I just felt that since this was an issue that we’re dealing with here in the City as well as Jefferson Parish and Gretna and places like that and E. Baton Rouge, it would be prudent for us to kinda find out what the solution was being worked out in those other municipalities, and govern ourselves accordingly, so rather than to continue postponing, postponing, I would just say that we place it on the table. And if they come up with some resolution, because obviously, whatever resolution is worked out in Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parish is going to be applicable to us in Shreveport.

Councilman Hogan: Do you foresee this resolution being worked out before November 28^th?

Councilman Lester: I mean, you know how fast we move here in Shreveport, and I’ve been told that they don’t move quite as fast in Baton Rouge. Maybe one day I’ll help change that.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

3. Ordinance No. 150 of 2006: An ordinance enacting Section 2-51 of the Code of Ordinances relative to qualifications for members of Boards and Commissions, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Hogan) (Postponed September 26, 2006)

Having passed first reading on September 12, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson.

Amendment No. 3A to Ordinance No. 150 of 2006

By: Councilman Walford

Amend Section 2-51(b) and add Sections 2-51(c), (d) and (e) to read as follows:

(b) Each member of any board, commission or other body, and each member of his immediate family, or legal entity in which he has a substantial economic interest, who derives any thing of economic value of which he may be reasonably expected to know from a contract with the City of Shreveport at any time during which said member serves on such board, commission or body, shall disclose the following:

(1) The amount of income or value of any thing of economic value derived;

(2) The nature of the business activity;

(3) Name and address, and relationship to the member, if applicable; and

(4) The name and business address of the legal entity, if applicable.

(c) The disclosure statements required in this Section shall be filed with the Internal Auditor by December 31 of each year and shall include such information for that calendar year. Such statements shall be a matter of public record.

(d) Any person appointed by the Mayor to a board, commission or other body shall acknowledge said disclosure requirement in writing before the confirmation of the appointment is considered by the City Council. Any person who becomes a member of a board, commission or other body other than by appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by the City Council shall acknowledge said disclosure requirement in writing within 30 days after becoming such a member. All such acknowledgements shall be filed with the Internal Auditor.

(e) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to allow any person to enter into any contract which would otherwise be prohibited by the requirements of the Code of Governmental Ethics of the State of Louisiana and the Charter of the City of Shreveport, 1978.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt Amendment No. 3A to Ordinance No. 150 of 2006.

Councilman Walford: Just in the way of brief discussion again, I will commend you for your efforts, and I think that clearly this amendment will take a giant step towards where you were trying to get. And we’ll certainly require anyone who serves on any of our boards and commissions that are appointed by the Council to provide financial disclosure if they do any business with the city. So, I would encourage the Council to pass this.

Councilman Hogan: Likewise. I would like to say that I appreciate your effort to reach a compromise on this. It reminds me of three years ago, when we served on the committee fashioning the rules for sexually oriented business.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman.

Councilwoman Robertson: I wasn’t here, and I don’t want you to go there.

Councilman Jackson: Take your time now.

Councilman Walford: I remember it well Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Well, I didn’t get the strictest regulations I wanted against those places, but we did reach a compromise. And it kinda reminds me of that. Enough said.

Councilman Jackson: And maybe counsel, or City Attorney can tell us, would this amendment, how does the amendment materially change the ordinance that’s being offered, the original ordinance itself?

Ms. Glass: Instead of a person not being able to serve if he has a conflict, or conflict would be the wrong word, but if persons that the ordinance covers, instead of them not being able to serve, they would simply have to file the disclosure requirement, if they do have a contract with the city.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, I understand. It appears to me what we’re doing is adding an amendment that adds disclosure to the original document, but doesn’t - - - I didn’t see any language that strikes a particular body of language and replaces it with something different.

Ms. Glass: Mr. Chairman, it does, because it changes B from what it read previously, to now read that any member shall disclose the following instead of reading that not member shall serve. B is changed.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, so it does substantially change what Mr. Hogan initially talked about?

Ms. Glass: Yes.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Walford, a few minutes ago, I was able to get a couple of my questions answered while there was other discussion. I did have one last question for you. Under the very bottom at explanation of amendment, the last sentence reads requires members of city boards and commissions to acknowledge such disclosure requirements. Could you kinda clarify that for me?

Councilman Walford: Can I defer to Ms. Glass who wrote it, as I think she can help us?

Ms. Glass: I understood the discussion yesterday to be that not only does the board member have to file the disclosure of a contract that he has with the city, but when he or she becomes a member of the board, we wanted him to acknowledge that they know that, that’s the rule. I guess so that later, they can’t say that they didn’t know.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, I understand.

Councilman Walford: And personally, I think it’s something that the Council should have when the biographical information comes forward, that should be included with it. It takes away any chance of anyone saying I didn’t know, so they just acknowledge as they’re appointed.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt Ordinance No. 150 of 2006 as amended.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, just by way of clarification, I did not read Amendment No. 2, because yesterday Mr. Carmody, the author, had stated that he was withdrawing it.

Councilman Carmody: And please let the record reflect that Amendment 2 was withdrawn.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

4. Ordinance No. 151 of 2006: An ordinance authorizing the donation of City-owned property to the Housing Authority of Shreveport and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Postponed September 26, 2006)

Having passed first reading on September 12, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 154 of 2006: An ordinance creating and establishing a speed limit of 45 MPH on Wells Boulevard from North Thomas Drive to Airport Drive and on North Hearne Avenue from North Market Street to North Thomas Drive and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/.Lester)

Having passed first reading on September 26, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

161 Closing and abandoning a portion of the 20-foot wide alleyway located between Grigsby Street and Summers Street and bordered by Linwood Avenue, and Dowdell Street in Section (T17-N-R14 W) Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on October 10, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

162 Authorizing and providing for an encroachment on the St. Vincent water tower, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on October 10, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

181 Amend and reenact portions of Article III of Chapter 50 of The Code of Ordinances relative to advertising and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on October 10, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

Councilman Hogan: I’d like to offer an explanation for this since it is my legislation. It was brought to my attention from my constituents and from other people across the city that were being issued citations for temporary signs, such as open houses for realtors, garage sales, any temporary signs that appeared in the median. And were to be even removed, but they were still in violation, so this offers a compromise for these people to be able to place their signs on city-owned property, in the median, and they have to remove it after the sale or after open house is completed. Any questions or comments?

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, the enforcement end of this, what penalty is there for them not to remove the signage?

Councilman Hogan: There was a dollar amount. Ms. Glass, do you recall what that was?

Ms. Glass: I don’t recall. It would be - - - there is a basic rule that you can’t put signs in the public right of way and this is just an exception. So whatever that would be, would extend to this. But I don’t recall what it was. It’s not part of this ordinance.

Councilman Hogan: There is a penalty, a monetary penalty.

Ms. Glass: It could be the same as the existing - - -.

Councilman Jackson: Just looking at this, and maybe y’all can identify it for me, I didn’t see where it says when you move the signs.

Ms. Glass: Well, No. 5 says the signs shall not be displayed except on the date of the vent. So you know you put your open house sign up and by that evening, I guess it would be the date of the event, it would have to be by 12 midnight.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, I guess the other question then is, why would we limit the number of times that they could do that, if we’re going to give them the right to do it in general, why would we limit the right - - - ? It’s just a house? Is it per address? Temporary event on residential property is permitted by the zoning ordinance, but they only get six times a year to be able to do this for one residential address even though they’re having what we call a lawful events. We recognize them as lawful events and allow signage, but only six? And I guess where I get back to that is, is that anything that is legitimately enforceable because, I mean is there somebody who knows the number of times someone has done that. Who would know? I mean, I don’t think you have a registration process where you say if you’re going to put a sign up on a particular day, you have to file it with the MPC or somebody’s office, and at least we have a form that’s filled out that says this person, I’m using this lot, this right of way, but I’m requesting this for October 26^th. And it’s on, and the only way we would know is when they come into the office to file a fifth one, and you say well hey, this is the last one. But I don’t know if we even have a way of being able to even - - - and God knows I’m not suggesting that. Because I just think that would be a lot involved in hat scenario. So, I don’t know. Maybe it’s in here, and I didn’t see it.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Jackson, the way I appreciate it, and again, I the assistance of our Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Glass. It doesn’t necessarily apply six times per residence per garage sale, or six times per real estate agent. But it shall not be displayed for more than six days in one calendar year, per event. Ms. Glass, am I understanding that right?

Ms. Glass: I think it’s one residential address can have the sign for that address for an event at that address six times per year. I think the enforcement would be just like it is for other signs in the right of way, and you’re right, probably it might not be caught sometimes, but then when there’s one where the neighbors are saying you know that sign has been there for the past month, you’d be able to use this to go - - - (inaudible) requirements to be removed.

Councilwoman Robertson: There are people in reference to what you’re saying. There are people that every weekend that have a garage sale at their home. And I think that don’t’ you have to have a - - - if you’re going to be a garage sale, sales type out of your home, don’t you have to have a permit for that?

Councilman Hogan: You have to have and itinerate vendors’ license.

Ms. Glass: Mr. Kirkland is still here. I know that there is a certain number.

Councilman Hogan: There’s two. You’re allowed to have two, three garage sales. Is it three? It used to be two. It’s three now. Three garage sales per year. Other than that you do have to get an itinerate vendor’s - - - you have to get some type of permit. Supposed to - - - say what? A zoning permit, a variance yet. Okay.

Councilwoman Robertson: I think that’s what the answer is. So, if they had more than that, somebody could say, do you have your permit?

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I think I may understand where we’re going, but I just think that it comes a time when you just get so many laws that we have them for the sake of activity, but the question becomes somebody’s got to be responsible for enforcing them, and I don’t know. I just - - - and I want to make sure that we focus on the issue. The issue is not about garage sales. The issue is about signs in the right of way. There is a reason why we have a law currently to not put signs in the right of way, that have much to do with traffic, and the interruption - - - I mean you know vision and also to do with, what I think general aesthetics. And then what’s very often just the negligence of the person who is trying to get folks to come to their garage sales wherever, and could care less what happens to the sign the next day, because they know we’re going to go and pick it up the next day. I recognize what they’re saying, but I think it’s only going to be four blocks away, that when you get into deep neighborhoods, and neighborhoods where there are lots of streets, four blocks away may not even be a right of way, may not even be, other than in a ditch somewhere. I just don’t know Mr. Chairman, and with all due respect to the author, I don’t have any problems with what I think the idea of it is, and trying to help people in your district, but I just think that - - - what’s the definition of intersection? You gotta be four intersections away, and you know - - - I’m just assuming you mean two cross streets. That’s an intersection. Not a major intersection, no red light, I just - - - - Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have to not support this. I just think sometimes we go too far and I think we need to try to enforce the laws we already have. I think they’ve been well put together for a purpose, and this will serve to undo what I think the original purpose is, and without something more compelling, I just don’t feel led to be able to support this. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: With that said, I appreciate your comments. Perhaps we don’t derive any benefit economically from garage sales. We don’t charge sale taxes on people - - - on sales at a garage sale, but I guess the main reason that I crafted this is because there are indeed realtors all over town that have - - - I know of one especially in my district that does a lot of open houses. And this is his livelihood. This is what he does for a living. He’s not trying to make a quick buck on the weekend. And it does in fact benefit him to have a sign out, and I don’t see any harm. He should be able to have a sign to put out over the weekend for his open house. 12 years ago, I was in this same situation, when I was doing open houses. I started out working for a realtor, for a broker, and I would go put my sign out if it was 2-4, or 2-5, I would put my sign out, and I would go pick it up when it was done. I think somebody should have that right, because it’s part of our economy. You know it’s part of someone’s livelihood.

Councilman Jackson: Was it against the law at the time?

Councilman Hogan: I wasn’t aware. I have to confess, in 1994, I wasn’t aware if it was. Perhaps it was, I don’t know 12 years ago. Councilman Robertson?

Councilwoman Robertson: Okay, I’m going to throw a wrench in here. What about our campaign election sign that’s out for the day of the election and to a median, even though we’ve got the other ordinance? If it’s in a right of way and it’s a sign advertising for a one day event.

Councilman Walford: But it’s not a directional sign.

Ms. Glass: If it’s a directional sign that advertises an event on residential property. This is limited to an event on residential property.

Councilwoman Robertson: Okay.

Ms. Glass: So, I guess it would be if there was a meeting at someone’s house, you could do it, but otherwise no.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Robertson, and Hogan. 4. Nays: Councilman Jackson. 1. Absent: Councilman Green. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

156 ZONING - C-74-06: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance, by re-zoning property located on the east side of East Kings Highway 474 feet north of east Bert Kouns Industrial Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence Agriculture District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Carmody)

Having passed first reading on September 26, 2006 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I’d hoped to have heard from the applicant, but I see that the applicants are no longer amongst the living. So, I assume that’s why they hadn’t called me to ask or to apprise me of - - - yeah, you would normally thought you would send somebody that was a representative. It does say that the applicant - - - that two persons representing the applicant spoke in support. So, I’m assuming that those weren’t the two deceased individuals. But I would go ahead and say that based upon the fact that this representation is for a long term acute health facility operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without a requirement of a variance in hours of operations, within the meaning of the ordinance, that if it is going to be for that purpose, then it appears to be a compatible use for that area, and so I ask for our support. And God rest their souls.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, could I ask that once again, that we consider postponing that, and the reason being Thomas, I think we talked about it. We never talked about it? We have a request or a demand I should say, by DOTD to do a right turn lane at the corner of Bert Kouns and E. Kings highway. It’ll be directly on that corner, that these folks are talking about. And (inaudible) - - -

Councilman Carmody: Yeah, with us have to expropriate some property.

Mayor Hightower: No, I don’t think that’s going to be the case, but there’s cost involved. And the reason that DOTD is insisting that we do this is due to Phase II of the Lowe’s facility down the street, which is a long ways away. So, and it looks like the city is going to incur some costs. So what we want to look to do is pick up some of that cost along the way if we can. This being the first land user in that particular location. So Mr. Strong I guess is gone, but is in the process of talking with those developers at this point to see if we can get some help from them on that right turn lane.

Councilman Carmody: Well I’ll offer a substitute motion then to postpone and would ask for a second. But I have a question. Mr. Mayor, can you elaborate though? What are we trying to discuss with the developers regarding recuperating costs? I’m lost you there.

Substitute motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone.

Mayor Hightower: DOTD is mandating that someone - - -

Councilman Carmody: That the City of Shreveport contribute some portion of the project to put that turn lane in?

Mayor Hightower: 100% of that.

Councilman Carmody: Oh, okay. They want 100% of it, but we’re going to ask the developer at Lowe’s - - -?

Mayor Hightower: To participate. We have asked Lowe’s to participate, the developer of Lowe’s to participate, we’re going to ask these people to participate. Hopefully to shrink the burden that the City of Shreveport has on paying for it. If we go build it and do it, I don’t think we have a - - -

Councilman Carmody: No, they’re not going to pony up, but I guess my question is I can see the finishing out of the Lowe’s project to the south if it goes all the way to the right of way of Bert Kouns.

Mayor Hightower, and that won’t happen.

Councilman Carmody: And that’s not going to happen. And I can also envision a time where that cotton field that’s on the east side of E. Kings Highway and north of Bert Kouns will be completely built out, but I’m not sure of the rationale or whether you’re going to have cooperation. And it never hurts to ask, but it almost sounds like we’re going down another avenue, which I don’t mind exploring, but of asking developers to help pay the improvement cost for the infrastructure that’s being placed around their property.

Mayor Hightower: And I don’t think that it’s anything new. Lowe’s is going to ask to do that by the state in providing turn lanes and change of intersection and cross over. So, I don’t think this is anything new.

Councilman Carmody: For the City of Shreveport to do it?

Mayor Hightower: And we’d have to ask Mr. Strong if we’ve actually done it before. The state does it on a regular basis. But I do think if the state’s dropped the fireball in our lap, then we ought to do something in return.

Councilman Carmody: This might actually bring back these applicants from the dead so they can talk to me about it. But we’ll see if they’re that motivated, but I’m more than willing to postpone it.

Mr. Kirkland: Just a quick two cents worth. The Mayor is exactly right, in that that’s a burden that the taxpayer should not have to pick up. And I’ll give you a quick example. The new Super Center WalMart. They’re spending better than a half million dollars on Shreveport-Barksdale because of improvements directly related to the new WalMart. It would be ludicrous for the city to have to pick up that expense, but if WalMart didn’t, at some point the city would. So, Councilman that’s - - - I think it’s commendable that a mayor would take the position to say, you want to develop this property, you pay some of these costs.

Councilman Carmody: And then I like the example that you’re giving, because I remember when WalMart personnel came in to talk to me, they said we want you to improve Knight Street. And I said, I’d like for you to improve Knight Street. You’re going to be the beneficiary, you’re going to have your truck traffic coming to the back for loading docks to that store. Now what they ended up doing that I appreciated in the meeting that I attended that they made their deal with the state to say we’re building our own entrance (new entrance) off Shreveport-Barksdale Highway into the parking lot. But I agree with you when you say that the tax payers should not have to bear the burden but in the instance of Knight Street, I have the feeling that the City of Shreveport is going to have to put a Bond Referendum together at some point to address the conditions around that location. Once the Super WalMart is back in the vicinity of Shreve City.

Mr. Kirkland: I agree, but the point I’m making is that in support of what the Mayor is asking you to do is give the City time to negotiate what I would suspect would be a reasonable agreement, and a reasonable agreement would be at least pick up a part of the cost, if not all of it directly related to your development. The developers will walk these deals. I used to live in that world. And you know as well as I do, they’ll walk it as long as the public will pick it up, they’ll walk it.

Councilman Carmody: Well, I think at one time, the City of Shreveport actually did improvement liens against property. And therefore when you come into two lane asphalt road, and put it in concrete four lane with sidewalks, then you would assign basically a lien against the property that was benefitting from the infrastructure. I don’t have a problem with it, but I understood there was a problem in collecting that money in the past, and so maybe it’s a new day when we can figure out a way to do it and have it pay off.

Mr. Kirkland: Well, the Mayor and others in this Administration at least, have made I think, significant headway, and as you well know, and y’all all do. You hear the complaints from the public about how come you don’t fix Youree Drive? How come you don’t fix other streets where there’s congestion? Well by requiring developers to pay off significant portions of that, at least a lot of it’s already been done. There is still plenty of work still to be done as we well know, as bond issues (inaudible) means the revenue will have to be used to pay for it.

Councilman Carmody: And we all well know that now you’re getting complaints about improving Youree Drive. So, once again, you are if you do, and you are if you don’t. So.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 150 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT SECTION 2-51 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Hogan

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 2-51 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 2-51. Qualifications of Members of Boards and Commissions

(a) This section shall apply to any member of any board, commission or other body appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council in accordance with Section 8.02 of the City Charter. These requirements shall be considered supplementary to the requirements of the Code of Governmental Ethics of the State of Louisiana and any appropriate sections of the Charter of the City of Shreveport, 1978.

(b) No member of any board, commission or other body, and no member of his immediate family, or legal entity in which he has a substantial economic interest, shall be a party to a contract with the City of Shreveport at any time during which said member serves on such board, commission or body.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective on November 28, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this Ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Ordinance which can be given affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all Ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Amendment No. 3A to Ordinance No. 150 of 2006

By: Councilman Walford

Amend Section 2-51(b) and add Sections 2-51(c), (d) and (e) to read as follows:

(b) Each member of any board, commission or other body, and each member of his immediate family, or legal entity in which he has a substantial economic interest, who derives any thing of economic value of which he may be reasonably expected to know from a contract with the City of Shreveport at any time during which said member serves on such board, commission or body, shall disclose the following:

(1) The amount of income or value of any thing of economic value derived;

(2) The nature of the business activity;

(3) Name and address, and relationship to the member, if applicable; and

(4) The name and business address of the legal entity, if applicable.

(c) The disclosure statements required in this Section shall be filed with the Internal Auditor by December 31 of each year and shall include such information for that calendar year. Such statements shall be a matter of public record.

(d) Any person appointed by the Mayor to a board, commission or other body shall acknowledge said disclosure requirement in writing before the confirmation of the appointment is considered by the City Council. Any person who becomes a member of a board, commission or other body other than by appointment by the Mayor and confirmation by the City Council shall acknowledge said disclosure requirement in writing within 30 days after becoming such a member. All such acknowledgements shall be filed with the Internal Auditor.

(e) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to allow any person to enter into any contract which would otherwise be prohibited by the requirements of the Code of Governmental Ethics of the State of Louisiana and the Charter of the City of Shreveport, 1978.

ORDINANCE NO. 161 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE ALLEYWAY LOCATED BETWEEN GRIGSBY STREET AND SUMMERS STREET AND BORDERED BY LINWOOD AVENUE AND DOWDELL STREET IN SECTION 13 (T17N-R14W) SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO:

WHEREAS, the Property Management Section of the Department of Operational Services has received a request to close and abandon a portion of the above referenced alley; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the West 463.55 feet of the East 583.55 feet of the existing 20-foot wide alleyway in Section 13 (T17N-R14W) Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana and as shown and as indicated on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby closed and abandoned. A permanent servitude for use by utilities, water and sewerage, and drainage is hereby retained over the entire area.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that a certified copy of this ordinance is to be filed

and recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that if any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 162 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE ST. VINCENT WATER TOWER, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City Engineer’s office of the Department of Operational Services has received a request to permit the placement of a television camera on the St. Vincent Ave. water tower; and

WHEREAS, this proposed encroachment upon this facility is not adverse to the public interest of the citizens of the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, such disposition by ordinance is authorized by the provisions of Section 2.03 (e) of the Charter of Shreveport, 1978

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized and empowered to grant a certain encroachment with respect to the St. Vincent water tower , unto and in favor of the KTBS Channel 3, and after due notice, publication, and compliance in all respects with the laws applicable thereto, and after the effective date of this ordinance, the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute and deliver, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, an instrument or permit of encroachment, substantially in the form of the document filed along with the original copy of this ordinance in the office of the Clerk of Council of the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that KTBS Channel 3 file and record a certified copy of the Permit to Encroach in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 181 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT PORTIONS OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 50 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO ADVERTISING AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 50-188 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby amended and reenacted by adding subsection (c) to read as follows:

(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to temporary signs giving directions to an event on residential property, when the sign complies with the following requirements:

(1) The sign must be a directional sign indicating the location of an event on a specified date.

(2) The size of the sign shall not exceed two square feet, the height of the sign shall not exceed two feet.

(3) Not more than four signs may be placed for one event.

(4) The signs shall not be placed more than four intersections away from the property on which the event will take place.

(5) The signs shall not be displayed except on the date of the event.

(6) The term “event” shall mean a temporary lawful event held on a specified date, such as an open house for the purpose of sale of residential real estate, a garage sale, an estate sale, or any other temporary event on residential property which is permitted by the zoning ordinance and other applicable laws and ordinances. However, signs shall not be displayed for more than six days in one calendar year for one residential address, regardless of the number of lawful events which take place at that address.

(7) The term “residential” shall mean property zoned for residential use in accordance with the zoning ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this Ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Ordinance which can be given affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all Ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Resolution No. 100 of 2006: Authorizing the release of mortgages and cancellation of promissory notes executed by Shreveport Publishing Corporation (now Snap Property, LLC) in favor of the City of Shreveport in connection with the neighborhood improvement leveraging project and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Introduced June 13, 2006 – Tabled August 8, 2006)

2. Ordinance No. 93 of 2005: Amending and reenacting Section 3.01 of Ordinance No. 96 of 1980 relative to exemptions and exclusions from sales and use taxes and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Introduced – 6/14/05 - Tabled on July 12, 2005)

3. Ordinance No. 131 of 2006: Amending certain sections of Chapter 38 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to housing and property standards and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Tabled - October 10, 2006)

4. MPC CASE NO: C-76-06: 3749 Jewella Avenue, APPLICANT: CASH AMERICA, INC. OF LOUISIANA. No ordinance required. (Postponed Oct. 10, 2006)

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I want to move to postpone this please>

Councilman Hogan: Okay, I’m just kind of curious to know - - -

Councilman Carmody: It’s on the table (inaudible)

Councilman Jackson: Oh, no, I’m just not going to - - - I’m sorry, I’ll just leave it where it is.

Councilman Hogan: Not trying to put you on the spot, but was there any special reason for that?

Councilman Jackson: Yes sir, I feel put upon.

Councilman Hogan: You feel what?

Councilman Jackson: I feel put upon, by you putting me on the spot.

5. 2007 Budget Appropriation Ordinances (Introduced and Tabled on October 10)

163 Adopting the 2007 General Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

164 Adopting the 2007 Capital Improvements Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

165 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

166 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

167 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Water and Sewerage Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

168 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Metropolitan Planning Commission’s Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

169 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

170 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

171 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Airports Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

172 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Police Grants Special Fund appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

173 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

174 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

175 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

176 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Convention Center Hotel Enterprise Fund, appropriating the Funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

177 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

178 Adopting the 2007 Budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

179 Adopting the 2007 Debt Service Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

180 Adopting the 2007 Budget Funding Contractual Services provided to SPORTRAN by Metro Management Associates, Inc., and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

NEW BUSINESS:

PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL

PSD500397 (2106 Mabel Street) Ms.Venius C. Winn, 4000 Velva Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71109 (G/Jackson) (Postponed Oct 9, 2006)

Mr. Thompson: We’ve already been over this, but Mr. Winn was here before the meeting started today, and indicated that he is withdrawing his appeal. It was postponed until today. So, if there are no objections from the Council, we will remove this from the agenda.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES: None.

CLERK’S REPORT: None.

THE COMMITTEE RISES AND REPORTS: (Reconvenes Regular Council Meeting)

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:40 p.m.

___________________________________

//s// Jeffery A. Hogan, Chairman

___________________________________

//s// Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

Clerk Notes:

The special meeting scheduled to address an appeal for the revocation of permit to sell alcoholic beverages at Phat Katz Lounge, 4303 Greenwood Road, Shreveport, Louisiana, has been rescheduled for November 13, 2006. The meeting will be held in the Governmental Chamber, 505 Travis Street, Shreveport, Louisiana, at 4:00 p.m. or immediately following the regular Shreveport City Council Administrative Conference, whichever occurs later.